Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Post Office

Danny Alexander: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the future of the rural post office network in Scotland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet ministerial colleagues and discuss a range of issues.

Danny Alexander: In the light of the decision not to allow post offices to deal with the new passports, and of reports that the contract for the Post Office card account will not be renewed after 2010, it appears that the Government are planning massive cuts in the number of rural post offices. Will the Minister assure the House that he will impress on his colleagues the essential social importance of the 1,100 rural post offices in Scotland and ensure that funding is put in place to ensure their survival long into the future?

David Cairns: It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the more than £2 billion of investment that the Government have put into the post office network, including £500 million for IT and £750 million invested specifically in the rural network. He has to face up to a simple dilemma. There are 800 post offices in the network with fewer than five customers a day. People are choosing to shop in a different way and, even before the introduction of the POCA, more and more people were choosing to have their benefits paid directly into bank and building society accounts. Would he continue to support a network that would wither on the vine without that investment, at an ever-increasing cost to the taxpayer? Those are difficult decisions. I understand why the Liberal Democrats are not capable of taking tough decisions, but we may have to.

John McFall: The Minister is aware that more than 4 million people have been given a POCA and that the account plays a significant part in the financial inclusion agenda. If it is to be withdrawn by 2010, will he give an undertaking that there will be proper planning and consultation so that the Government's financial inclusion objectives are realised?

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Government set great store by financial inclusion. As chairman of the Treasury Committee, he has played a large part in advancing that agenda. The fact is that the guarantee to maintain the POCA extended only to 2010. Decisions on what happens after that are the subject of ongoing discussions between the Post Office and the Department for Work and Pensions. Large numbers of those who access their benefits through a POCA also have a bank account, so it is not axiomatic that all those who currently go through a POCA do not have an alternative account, but my right hon. Friend is right to remind us of the need for financial inclusion. We will keep that uppermost in our minds.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Given that the Post Office successfully continues to supply 170 different products, but that 40 per cent. of its income derives from pensions and benefits, is not the time now right for the Government to renegotiate with Post Office Counters people's ability to access bank accounts at the post office, or to use their cards in the post office to draw money from their benefits? Surely both are not possible.

David Cairns: It is a fact that basic banks accounts with all the major Scottish banks are accessible at post offices in Scotland, so we have gone some way to deal with that issue. [Hon. Members: "No."] Basic bank accounts are accessible. What we have to do is ensure that, as we look to the future of the Post Office, which we regard as extremely important—we have invested massively in its future and put in enormous amounts of taxpayers' money to sustain it—we ensure that we continue to meet the social needs that it currently fulfils. However, we must also bear in mind the fact that people's shopping patterns change and the need to reflect that. We will take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I think that the Government are already acting in that respect.

John Thurso: I hope that the Minister will discuss these matters with his colleagues, and when he does I hope that he will also raise the question of urban post offices. Is he aware of the plans of Post Office Ltd to alter the status of six Crown post offices in franchise agreements and of the consequences that that will have in terms of reduction of service to customers and of conditions for staff? Given that there are many opportunities for the Government to put business into post offices, will they take a lead in ensuring the survival of our post offices, particularly in towns such as Dunfermline?

David Cairns: The question on the Order Paper is about rural post offices and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that Dunfermline post office is a rural post office, it shows his complete and utter ignorance of Dunfermline. It also demonstrates clearly why his party has abandoned all hope of winning the Dunfermline and West Fife constituency. Indeed, so low is the Liberal Democrats' target that they hope only to beat the Scottish National party into third place. We have put significant investment—£2 billion—into the Post Office. I am sure that as long as Dunfermline continues to have an excellent Labour MP, as it will have after the by-election in a week or two, she will continue to ensure that the Government continue their policy of supporting the Post Office.

Asylum Cases (Dawn Raids)

James McGovern: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of Scotland on the use of dawn raids in asylum cases.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of subjects.

James McGovern: My hon. Friend will be aware of the disquiet felt in certain areas in Scotland about what the tabloid press portrays as dawn raids. Many people regard them as insensitive and unnecessary. Although any sensible politician would say there is no case for a separate immigration and asylum system in Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree that a certain flexibility might be applied to bolster public confidence in the system north of the border?

David Cairns: I thank my hon. Friend for the moderate and balanced way in which he made his point. The issue is all too often characterised by extremes at both ends: those who say we should have no asylum seekers or refugees at all, which we reject, and those at the other end who say we should have no rules to remove failed asylum seekers. We must have a balance. My hon. Friend is right. Early morning removals of asylum seekers are regrettable. We must do everything we can to avoid that, but if people are given opportunity and financial assistance once their claim for asylum has been turned down, they have lost their appeal, and they are asked to return to the country that they came from or their home country, if they consistently refuse to do so, we regrettably have to take steps to remove them. We must do so humanely and sensitively. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to that.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the Minister saying that we should enforce the rules sensitively and humanely, but does he agree that as they are currently carried out, early morning removals—dawn raids—are traumatic for families, particularly when parents are handcuffed and children are separated from their parents and taken away in different vehicles? What reassurances can he give to the constituents who contact me because they are concerned about the matter?

David Cairns: The point that the hon. Lady mentions illustrates perfectly why voluntary removals are far better. That is why it is much better for individuals to leave the country when their appeal has been turned down and they are instructed to leave and given financial help and support to do so. If people consistently refuse to leave the country after it has been found that they have no claim for asylum, we ultimately have to remove them if we are to have a system that we can enforce at all. It is very regrettable, but the power lies with them to pre-empt that by leaving the country when their appeal has run out.

Ann McKechin: Like my hon. Friend, I agree that if we have a system, we have to deal with applications that are unsuccessful. Following discussions that colleagues in Glasgow have had with the immigration department, a system is being introduced whereby a lead professional will be involved throughout the removal process, from correspondence to meetings, up to the final removal. What measures will the Government take to encourage more people to take the route of voluntary return?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right to point out the improvements that are being made in the removals system, such as the lead professional and work with schools that have large numbers of asylum seekers' children, as many of the concerns are raised through the children in those schools. Such changes have been brought about across the United Kingdom because of concerns expressed in Scotland. It is proper for us to acknowledge that the First Minister played an important role in raising these concerns in discussions with the Home Secretary. What we cannot have—I know my hon. Friend agrees with this—is a different removals regime in Scotland from the one in England because that would make it more difficult to remove asylum seekers from Scotland, as we would simply be sending a green light to every failed asylum seeker awaiting deportation in England to move to Scotland. That cannot be a sensible position.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answers and concur with his sentiments regarding the people being sent home. Is it not the case that Glasgow is the only city accepting asylum seekers? Is it not despicable for the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) to preach to those of us who have to deal with the problem daily, when her constituency and council have nothing to do with those people?

David Cairns: At Scottish questions, I have repeatedly congratulated Glasgow city council on the work that it has done. I have met Councillor Purcell, the leader of the council, and thanked him personally for the council's work. It is in negotiations to extend the contract. After a difficult start, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, it has bedded down well and the families of asylum seekers in Glasgow are contributing to the city, the economy and the schools. I am happy to pay tribute to Glasgow. It is open to any other council to come forward at any time and seek to be part of that scheme.

Energy

Michael Weir: What recent discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on energy in Scotland.

Alistair Darling: There are regular discussions with Ministers and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry on a wide range of matters.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for that uninformative answer. He will know that the DTI launched its energy review consultation document yesterday. Why are the Government determined to foist new nuclear power stations on Scotland when Scotland does not have an energy crisis? We produce eight times more gas than we consume, we have massive coal reserves and a massive potential for renewable energy generation. Is it not the case that Scotland could be energy independent? What we need is not new nuclear power stations but political power.

Alistair Darling: If the nationalists had their way, Scotland would not have any energy generation at all, because they are against nuclear and coal-fired power, and against wind farms unless they are in somebody else's constituency. They must face the fact that, in the next 15 to 20 years, Scotland will lose a lot of its generating capacity because it is getting older and we need to plan ahead now to make sure that we have secure energy supplies in the future. That means that we need to examine whether we should extend the life of the existing nuclear power stations, and whether there should be any new building of nuclear power stations and other plants. I must also point out that this Government and the Scottish Executive have given substantial help to renewable energy generation, which is very important. If the nationalists had their way, there would be no plants anywhere at all.

Frank Doran: The Secretary of State will be aware that, 30 years ago, Scotland held a world-class position in the renewables industry, but we lost that position when investment was squeezed out in the rush to go nuclear. Will the Secretary of State ensure, no matter what decision is made on nuclear power following the DTI review of the United Kingdom's energy requirements, that we maintain our investment in the renewables industry?

Alistair Darling: Absolutely. The Government and the Scottish Executive have targets to maintain and expand the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources. However, as I have said before, it is important that we generate electricity from a range of sources, so that we do not become over-dependent on any single one, which would be very risky. The whole point of the review is to have a grown-up discussion about what is best for Scotland. It is simply not possible to have an energy policy in which every option is ruled out, which is the position into which all three Opposition parties have more or less got themselves.

David Mundell: Last week in the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister said that section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 gives the Scottish Executive the power to veto the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State ask his colleagues in the DTI whether they agree with that interpretation?

Alistair Darling: Of course they do. I said at the last Question Time that the Scottish Executive would have to give their consent under the 1989 Act. In addition, planning matters are devolved, so the hon. Gentleman is doing no more than stating the blindingly obvious.

David Mundell: When the Secretary of State next discusses energy issues with his colleagues in the DTI, will he raise the impact of rising energy prices on businesses in Scotland? On the day that has seen the announcement of the loss of 700 jobs at Lexmark in Rosyth, will the Secretary of State acknowledge the fragility of Scotland's manufacturing industry? Does he accept that continuing rises in base costs will lead to further job losses?

Alistair Darling: Energy costs are certainly very important. Again, however, it is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that he is concerned about energy prices if he is then going to rule out a whole range of ways in which we could produce more energy, thus reducing prices. In relation to the announcement at Lexmark today, I have spoken to the local manager there and discussed the situation with him. This is clearly extremely disappointing news for the people who are employed at Lexmark, but the Scottish Executive and the Government, through Jobcentre Plus, will do everything that they possibly can to help the people who lose their jobs. In addition, it is also worth noting that more than 1,200 jobs have been announced in Fife in the past year. At a time when changes are taking place in the jobs market here and right across the world, it is important that we have a strong, stable economy backed up by as much help as possible to ensure that, if people do lose their jobs, they get back into work as soon as possible. That is something that we have been able to do, and there are now more jobs in Fife than at any time when the Tories were in power. It is important that we continue to maintain that course.

John MacDougall: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said about the investment in Fife and the campaigns fought by many people, including the late Rachel Squire, to achieve that success.
	Scotland's energy needs will arise whether Scotland wants them to or not and they will have to be met. What mechanisms will my right hon. Friend provide to allow Scotland's energy industry to engage in discussions during the energy review?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right to say how important it is for the Government to maintain a strong and stable economy in Fife and elsewhere, so that jobs continue to be created there. Some 10,000 jobs have been created in Fife over the past seven or eight years. Now we must ensure that we can maintain the current conditions to allow the creation of many more jobs.
	It is worth noting that some of the new jobs in Fife that have been announced during the last few months are connected with the construction of a wind turbine there. That is an example of the way in which Fife can gain from the new opportunities. It is important for all energy companies to be involved in the review, and that will certainly happen.

Election Counts

Brian H Donohoe: If he will make a statement on the proposals by the Electoral Commission to change the timing of the count at the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections.

Alistair Darling: I received the Electoral Commission's report on 10 January, and, in consultation with Ministers in the Scottish Executive, will consider its recommendations.

Brian H Donohoe: My right hon. Friend will know that I strongly oppose the idea of delaying the count. I believe that the delay is being requested purely because the same staff are used at polling stations during the day as are used at the count. Surely the answer is to employ more staff, so that an important aspect of the whole election process is adhered to.

Alistair Darling: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. As a Member who represents a constituency in Edinburgh, where results are regularly declared on what appears to be the next day—at 4 or 5 am—I should like to represent a constituency where they are declared at, say, 11.5 pm. We shall need to discuss the matter, not just with those who do the counting but with others, but we have only just received the recommendations and I think that I had better consider them before deciding what we should do.

Ian Davidson: Is it not essential for the counting of votes in the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections to be separated, ideally by about a year? Given that complex new local government election systems are being introduced, would it not be inappropriate for them to be implemented on the same day as the already complicated parliamentary election system? Only wee fearties want the elections to take place together.

Alistair Darling: I am not sure that I agree with that proposition. I am responsible for the conduct of elections to the Scottish Parliament. Responsibility for the timing of the local government elections lies with the Scottish Executive.

David Mundell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Electoral Commission has said that the additional member system of election, which would prevent candidates from standing in constituencies and also appearing on regional lists, is "outside international democratic norms"? Will he rule out the introduction of such a system in Scotland?

Alistair Darling: If it were not for the list system in Scotland there would be no Conservative MSPs, so I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. As I have said, I do not expect any early changes to be made to the Scotland Act 1998. We have the recommendations of the Arbuthnot committee, which will need to be considered by all political parties and indeed by others, but I have made it clear that I do not think any changes will be possible before the coming elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Jimmy Hood: The Secretary of State will recall the controversy that preceded the establishment of the Arbuthnot committee. Does he agree that, now that we have its report, Parliament—and Back Benchers in particular—should be able to have an input before the Government's response? Would that not best be achieved by setting up a Scottish Grand Committee to discuss the report?

Alistair Darling: I am always open to suggestions. I am sure that the usual channels will want to consider that. One thing that my hon. Friend will want to consider is whether a suitably large attendance at the Scottish Grand Committee can be guaranteed.

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: What recent devolution issues the Advocate-General has considered.

Alistair Darling: Since 13 December, 91 devolution issues have been raised with the Advocate-General.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will be aware that a number of Conservative Members take a close interest in devolution issues in Scotland and I hope that he will join me in congratulating the outgoing Advocate-General on her appointment to the bench. In so far as there is now a vacancy, who will be answering for the Advocate-General, and when might that vacancy be filled? Obviously, devolution is of close interest to the Opposition, and we would like to know that the matters that we raise will receive close attention from the Secretary of State's Department.

Alistair Darling: I am glad to hear that devolution is of great interest to the Conservative party—that is one of the many ways in which it tells us that it has changed. As far as the appointment of the Advocate-General to the bench is concerned, I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said, and I am sure that she will miss her—we will remember fondly their exchanges over many years. The appointment of the new Advocate-General is of course a matter for the Prime Minister.

Alex Salmond: Can the new Advocate-General rule on which Minister is responsible for responding to the ridiculous proposal from Labour and Liberal councillors on the Forth Estuary Transport Authority to increase the tolls to a massive £4? The Secretary of State for Scotland says that he is against it, but the First Minister merely wants to delay it until after the by-election. Who will respond with regard to the £4 imposition proposed by the Labour and Liberal parties? Will the new Advocate-General also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is allowed one supplementary not three.

Alistair Darling: It seems to be true that the nationalists and Liberals are fighting each other for second place in the by-election. Given that it is now clear that the existing Forth bridge will not last as long as people thought, that it would be ridiculous if Fife were left without a bridge, and that most reasonable people think that there ought to be a bridge between Fife and the central belt, it is interesting that the Greens are the only party that says that it is against it, and the Scottish National party wants to go into coalition with the Greens. Therefore, if one votes SNP or Green, one is voting for there not to be a replacement bridge.

Ferries

Andrew Turner: When he last discussed ferry services in Scotland with the Secretary of State for Transport.

Alistair Darling: Responsibility for ferry services in Scotland rests with Scottish Executive Ministers.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for that unrevealing answer, because I asked him when he last discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport. Can he tell me what is the subsidy per passenger mile to ferries in Scotland? Has he been informed by the Secretary of State for Transport what is the subsidy per passenger mile to ferries in England?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the Isle of Wight, all services are provided on a commercial basis. The reason for that is that about 9 million passengers are carried on ferries between the mainland and the Isle of Wight, whereas in the Scottish islands, even on routes such as Stornaway to Ullapool, the figure is about 189,000. A figure of 9 million passengers means that commercially justified services are possible, whereas most of the Scottish islands need an element of subsidy. I assume that even the new Conservative party is not arguing that ferry services are not important to the Hebrides and other islands. Such services need to be maintained and subsidised.

Angus MacNeil: Have the Secretary of State or the Government investigated the economic benefits of the possible increase in tax revenues as a result of further lowering ferry fares to the Hebrides?

Alistair Darling: Were there to be such a consideration, it would have to be given by the Scottish Executive, which, of course, is responsible for the subsidy regime and for maintaining ferries to the Hebrides.

Energy Prices

Michael Connarty: What representations he has received from Scottish industry representatives on energy prices.

David Cairns: The Government are working closely with industry to mitigate the impact of increased energy prices.

Michael Connarty: Is the Minister aware that, when I have met heavy energy users in my constituency such as BP, which has sold the Grangemouth refinery to Ineos, and KemFine, which will have heat and power plants, they tell me that they are counted as being in breach of the 1997 emission regulations for SO 2 every 15 minutes, whereas under the European directive, their competitors are in breach only once every hour? That means that they are four times more penalised—they cannot use fuel oil, which is a cheaper replacement for gas—than their competitors. In the forthcoming revision in the new directive, will the Government consider levelling the playing field and allowing heavy users in Britain with heat and power plants to use fuel oil in the same way as users can in the EU?

David Cairns: I am aware of the issue, not least because it is one that my hon. Friend has raised assiduously in the House on many occasions. He will be interested to know that the Minister for Energy is meeting industry bodies tomorrow to discuss a range of issues on the subject, including fuel switching, and I am sure that he will bear those representations in mind. It is true that we have more stringent environmental standards than many of our competitors. We also have tougher targets for carbon emissions, but we have to balance that with the need to protect jobs and industry. That is the point that my hon. Friend makes. While some parties pay lip service to the environment and some to the economy, we have to make sure that we manage both.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Minister give us an update on the oil and gas pipeline being built between Norway and Scotland? Will it be built on time and to budget? As it is my 34th birthday today, can he give me a straight answer?

David Cairns: I wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns. He does not look a day over 33. Since he has come to the House, he has aged well.
	We welcome the increasingly close co-operation with Norway in developing efficient cross-boundary infrastructure for both oil and gas. It is an important source of energy for this country. We have to work closely on that and I am sure that we will.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Minister of State was asked—

Party Political Funding

Barbara Keeley: How much was paid from public funds to the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties in 2004 and 2005.

Harriet Harman: Over the past two years, out of public funds, the Conservative party received around £4.5 million, the Liberal Democrats received around £2 million and the Labour party received around £500,000.

Barbara Keeley: Many people do not trust the idea of multi-millionaires giving donations to political parties for their campaigns, yet in election campaigns, all the parties try to match campaign spending by the other parties. Obviously, that needs to be controlled. What chance does the Minister think there may be for some all-party proposals to tackle that funding issue?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that there is concern around the House that voters should be sure that what makes a difference is their vote on the ballot paper, not political parties, whatever side of the House they sit on, being pushed into the arms of millionaires or big companies. We have brought forward proposals at least to make the position more open and transparent with donations having to be declared, but paradoxically the more the public know about donations, the more concern grows. We need to consider and discuss that matter.

David Burrowes: Last Wednesday, The Independent reported that Labour is considering a big extension of state funding for political parties to combat allegations of sleaze. Surely, rather than inflicting more misery on the hard-pressed taxpayer, the answer is to cut out any suggestions of cash for favours such as would arise from the proposal for the Prime Minister's chief of staff also to be involved in Labour party fund raising. Should not a clear line be drawn to prevent party political appointees from being involved in fund raising and having Executive powers over career civil servants?

Harriet Harman: I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to approach this matter in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and I have. This is not just a problem for one political party or just for this country, either. All democracies have to think about how political parties, which play such an important role in democracy, can obtain adequate funds and campaign effectively. This is something that the Conservative Front-Bench team under its new leader is thinking about. It has been debated by the Liberal Democrats. We will be thinking and talking about it on a cross-party basis but there are no immediate proposals that I can tell the House about.

Tony Wright: These are huge sums of public money and they are designed to enable Opposition parties to prepare policies to put to the people at general elections. When an Opposition party says that the policies that it developed were complete rubbish and that it now wants to reverse them, should there not be some sort of public refund?

Harriet Harman: I can see the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make, but to get back to the main point, we must have the right funding for parties and we must have openness. We must ensure that individual voters know that it is their vote that counts, not donations from big business.

Oliver Heald: Is it not of even more concern that the Government are already spending more than £500 million every year in Whitehall on spin? Is the Minister really saying that Labour deserves more taxpayers' cash, which is what The Independent was suggesting, when the Government have trebled the cost to taxpayers of special advisers? Now there are double the numbers and they are costing £5 million a year. Advertising costs have also trebled—up to £200 million a year—and public relations costs have gone up to a massive £333 million a year. Can she justify troubling the taxpayer for even more money when the Government are already spending all that money on spinning their policies?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has not said whether he agrees with the public funds already being spent on the Conservative party to enable it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, to develop policies in opposition. I hope that we can have a sensible discussion, rather than political point scoring. The hon. Gentleman has mixed up the issue of activity on behalf of the Government in public information campaigns and suchlike, which are subject to the scrutiny of this House but do not come under my Department, and the important issue of the infrastructure of political parties.

Fixed Penalty Notices

Andrew Rosindell: If she will make a statement on the proposed use of fixed penalty notices for disorderly behaviour as part of the Government's respect action plan.

Harriet Harman: The respect action plan sets out the Government's intention to make more use of penalty notices as a swift response to those who accept that they are guilty of offences of disorder.

Andrew Rosindell: The Minister will be aware that the Prime Minister has said that an individual would be able to appeal against a fixed penalty. Will she confirm that in reality an individual could, if they chose, ask to be tried for the offence, and if not, the penalty would lapse, therefore tying up the courts or letting hooligans and yobs get off scot-free?

Harriet Harman: I am not sure that the way in which the hon. Gentleman described the situation is right. If a fixed penalty notice is given for an offence of disorder, if the person who has been given the penalty accepts the conduct described in the notice and agrees that they did it, they can pay that fixed penalty. If they challenge that and do not accept that they did whatever it is, they can then go to court and have a trial.

David Kidney: Good use is already being made of fixed penalty notices, alongside court fines, but does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, over the past few months, Her Majesty's Courts Service had a high-profile campaign for the collection of unpaid fines? Does she agree that, if the use of fixed penalty notices is to expand, it is important for the sake of public confidence that when penalties have been imposed, they are collected?

Harriet Harman: Absolutely. For people to have confidence in the fixed penalty notice regime, enforcement will be a key issue, and obviously the courts will be very much part of that.

Anne Main: On collecting fines, are there any plans to march people to cash points, as was previously suggested?

Harriet Harman: Fine enforcement is very important and it really concerns people if they think that the whole court process has been gone through, a fine has been awarded, yet the person just walks away without paying. That is why the courts have been increasing their emphasis on enforcement. One of the things that they have been doing is asking people to produce their credit cards in court, scraping the cards and taking the money off them before people leave court. So credit cards are now actually being used to pay fines.

Keith Vaz: Why have the Government lost faith in our judicial system? Surely such cases ought to be taken through the courts. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the article in today's edition of The Times, which suggests that there are further discussions between the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General about extending the number of offences to be covered? The Director of Public Prosecutions describes the people concerned as the
	"surfeit of low-level criminality".
	Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what is happening, rather than allowing Members to rely on the writings of Frances Gibb?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is not right to say that we have lost faith in the courts—far from it. In fact, magistrates courts will have increased sentencing powers, which means that they will be able to deal with more serious cases. In cases where it is accepted that the person in question has committed the offence for which they received the fixed penalty notice, the issuing and paying of such a notice, instead of tying up the courts' time with a guilty plea, leaves the courts free to deal with more serious cases for which a trial is necessary. They are also free to deal with cases where, despite a guilty plea having been made, the offence is more serious and they therefore need to attend to the sentence.

Alan Beith: Does the right hon. and learned Lady accept that the danger with fixed penalty notices is that the courts do not see a sufficient range of such cases to supervise the way in which they operate? In case the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised any doubt about the principle, can she affirm that so far as she is concerned—and, indeed, so far as I am concerned—a fixed penalty notice that cannot be challenged in the courts would not be acceptable?

Harriet Harman: As I have said, if the person in question regards themselves as not guilty of the offence, they do not pay the fixed penalty notice and they go to court to explain why they are not guilty. Of course, the courts will have an opportunity indirectly to oversee the effect of fixed penalty notices, because those who do not pay them will go to court for enforcement proceedings.

Sentencing

Vera Baird: What steps she is taking to monitor the sentencing practices of individual judges in the Crown court to ensure that there is reasonable consistency in sentencing for similar offences.

Harriet Harman: The Court of Appeal has a system for monitoring the sentencing of individual judges in the Crown court to ensure consistency. The Sentencing Guidelines Council publishes information by area and by court in order to allow areas to compare their sentences.

Vera Baird: I am very pleased to hear that there is monitoring of individual judges, because until fairly recently, there was not. Journalistic expertise, which I accept, has shown that there is a defined cohort whose sentences are appealed against far more frequently—10 to 20 times more—than others. As we systematically try to improve the criminal justice system, do we not need to monitor the situation and tackle incompetent judges? After all, there is no doctrine of judicial independence repeatedly to get it wrong.

Harriet Harman: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, every case has to be dealt with according to the facts, and the courts must be independent of the Executive. It is true that the Court of Appeal takes the question of sentencing very seriously. It obviously wants to ensure that a sentence is right in respect not only of the offender, but of the victim and the local community, that it sends out the right message to society and that it puts the offender back on track. Formal monitoring by the Government would not be right, but we have established procedures through the Sentencing Guidelines Council whereby such monitoring can be carried out to ensure public confidence in the sentencing process.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that it is not the sentence handed out by the court that restores people's faith in the criminal justice system, but the sentence served? Because of the parole system, the latter can vary wildly from case to case. Does she agree that the way to restore people's faith is for prisoners to serve their sentences in full?

Harriet Harman: The parole system is well established and is a matter for the Home Office, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise this issue in more detail, I suggest that he does so with my Home Office ministerial colleagues.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the apparent disparity and inconsistency in sentencing are not the monopoly of Crown Court judges, as the same problems are evident in the magistracy? Will she look in particular at the inconsistent approach to sentences for alcohol-related driving offences? Does not disparity begin because the Crown Prosecution Service is not consistent when it comes to charging?

Harriet Harman: Magistrates have to deal with the charge that comes before them, which is based on the evidence available to the CPS, and on what the CPS thinks is in the public interest. It is not for magistrates to address the issue of charging by the back door, as it were, but I do not want the House to run away with the idea that there is rampant inconsistency in this area, that no overview is taken and that nothing is being done in this respect. If the Law Officers—the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General—think that there is a concern that a particular sentence is unduly lenient, that case can be referred to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal can then decide to keep the sentence as it is, or to increase it.

David Heath: To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), does not public confidence in the judicial system require both consistency and transparency in sentencing? The public are very often confused and dismayed when a person sentenced to imprisonment is released well short of the date handed down. Would not it be better to express the sentence as a fixed term of imprisonment that will be served, followed by a period of release under licence, or of further imprisonment in the case of bad behaviour?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman should look at judges' comments on sentencing. I have read numerous transcripts of such comments, and they reveal that judges very often explain to the court what a sentence will mean in practice. That is important for the offender being sentenced, and for the victims and the wider community. That is good sentencing practice, and we hope that it will become more widespread.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce what the right hon. and learned Lady said about the importance of judicial independence? Does she agree that consistency will be best achieved through the intervention of the Court of Appeal in appropriate cases and the guidelines produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Council?

Harriet Harman: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those comments, with which I agree wholeheartedly.

Legal Aid

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the availability of legal aid in criminal cases.

Bridget Prentice: I have regular and instructive contact about criminal legal aid with all stakeholders, including members of the legal profession, MPs and the general public. The hon. Lady will also be pleased to know that Lord Carter has had good and productive engagement from the legal profession since his independent review into legal aid procurement commenced.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister is tackling the problem of legal aid in criminal cases by reintroducing the means-testing that this Government scrapped, but at the same time there is also enormous pressure on the civil legal aid budget. The hon. Lady has said that many parts of the country are "legal aid deserts" when it comes to civil legal aid, so why is she not addressing both problems with the utmost priority?

Bridget Prentice: I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that we are addressing both matters with the utmost priority. The Criminal Defence Service Bill, which will come back to the House for Report stage and Third Reading on Thursday, deals with the payment of legal aid in certain criminal cases. If she wants to quote my words in respect of civil legal aid, she can repeat what I have said ad nauseam, both in this House and elsewhere—that we need to rebalance the legal aid budget, and that more money should go into civil legal aid. I assure her that the Department is working with all the stakeholders in this matter—the legal profession, law centres, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and others—to make sure that people everywhere in the country get the appropriate civil legal aid that they deserve.

Sally Keeble: My constituency is one of the legal aid deserts to which the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) referred. What is my hon. Friend the Minister doing to deal with the problem? In particular, what is she doing to attract more legal aid lawyers to work in areas where there is currently a real shortage?

Bridget Prentice: I can reassure my hon. Friend on two fronts. First, in some of the pilot schemes that we are introducing in urban areas, legal aid workers will work with other agencies to provide people with direct services in their immediate areas. We shall also have pilots in rural areas, where having one identifiable centre for people to go to is not as straightforward, and there we will have a network of support so that people can get advice that way.
	My hon. Friend made another important point about encouraging young lawyers to take legal aid jobs as part of their professional career. We are supporting the Law Society and others in developing grants to foster that.

Jonathan Djanogly: Many practitioners say that the proposals to reintroduce the means test for criminal legal aid under the Criminal Defence Service Bill will do little to resolve the legal aid crisis gripping this country. Does the Minister agree?

Bridget Prentice: Funnily enough, I do not. The hon. Gentleman supported us over the Criminal Defence Service Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, and I believe that he will support it again on Thursday. We are trying to redress the balance through the Bill. The budget is overspent, and we are addressing that. As I mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), Lord Carter of Coles is looking into legal aid procurement and will report shortly. I hope that his work with the professions and others will ensure that we have a long-term stable and proper legal aid structure that will serve this country well.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Programming of Legislation

Nicholas Winterton: What recent representations he has received on the programming of legislation.

Nigel Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not received specific representations on programming since the hon. Gentleman tabled an oral question in October last year, some three months ago.

Nicholas Winterton: The Modernisation Committee, which is chaired by the Leader of the House, is currently undertaking an inquiry into the legislative process. It is considering, among other things, the Standing Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of Bills, and Lords amendments. Surely the Leader of the House is aware that some of the evidence already submitted to him is highly critical of the programming system that we have in the House, which prevents our adequately scrutinising important legislation. Is not it time that the programming procedure was looked at again in order to enable the House to do the job that it is here to do?

Nigel Griffiths: Obviously, the present system is not the most perfect, but it is clear from reviews of the system that any suggested changes have consequences that the House might not intend. There are, of course, strong political pressures on the Opposition to oppose any Government's proposals for timetabling, which affects all but the least controversial Bills. The system was looked at in 2003 by the Modernisation Committee, and the Procedure Committee re-examined it in 2004. Improvements have been brought forward. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing and much respected Member, and he knows that under the previous guillotine procedures many clauses were never reached. But it is important to have a proper programming procedure that takes account, as far as possible, of one of the most common alleged abuses in the House, which is filibustering.

David Taylor: When the Modernisation Committee reviewed programming, it made two recommendations. It suggested having internal knives to allow Chairmen of Committees a little flexibility to postpone knives where discussions were advanced but not quite complete. Secondly, it suggested adding injury time when debates in Standing Committee, in particular, were seriously disrupted by Divisions in the House. The Government rejected both recommendations. As a Chairman of a Standing Committee, I recognise their value. Will there be a rethink on those two suggestions?

Nigel Griffiths: The Government do not intend to revisit those matters. They were looked at relatively recently and, as I have said, the volume of representations in recent months has not been particularly high on this issue, as others have focused on more important aspects of House procedures. However, my right hon. Friend and I have listened and we hear what my hon. Friend says; we keep an open mind on possible improvements. We have to be aware, however, as the House does, of unforeseen consequences, and the Government of the day have to get their business through in an orderly manner.

David Heath: We all know that consideration of a Bill, especially on Report, is often restricted, and that important groups of amendments are not considered, to the detriment of Back-Bench Members who may wish to raise a particular issue. We also know that there are days and sometimes weeks in which we seem to spend an awful lot of time accomplishing very little in terms of parliamentary debate. Is not it time to look again at setting up an all-party business committee to look sanely at the business of the House not only in the immediate future but over the full parliamentary calendar year?

Nigel Griffiths: I would welcome nothing more than an all-party committee that looked sanely, to use the hon. Member's words, at the matter. Unfortunately, in my experience of 18 years in the House, the lack of sanity on such matters is all too much in evidence. I am sorry to say that one of the reasons why there does not appear to be progress, or that discussion seems to focus around arcane issues during proceedings on a Bill, is that some hon. Members want to delay progress. In turn, that avoids getting on to clauses that hon. Members on both sides would like to debate. We live in an imperfect world, Mr. Speaker.

EU Legislation (Scrutiny)

David Borrow: What action he is taking to improve the scrutiny of EU legislation.

Nigel Griffiths: We have been considering closely the proposals the Modernisation Committee made in the previous Session on scrutiny of European business. We hope to bring forward ideas for taking this issue further.

David Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. May I put a suggestion to him for something that he could do straight away? On too many occasions, items referred by the European Scrutiny Committee to the European Standing Committee have been timed to coincide with a meeting of the European Scrutiny Committee. Will he ensure that that does not happen in future so that members of the European Scrutiny Committee who are interested in a particular item can be present for the debate in the European Standing Committee?

Nigel Griffiths: I have considerable sympathy with that point, which has also been raised by other hon. Members. I have considered the issue and I do not believe that there is an easy solution, which is why I cannot, I am sorry to say, give him the assurance that he seeks. I say that precisely because there are a substantial number of both Standing and Select Committees, but only a finite number of sitting days and hours when it is convenient to meet. Occasionally, there will be the sort of unfortunate clash that my hon. Friend has highlighted. If that can be avoided, business managers do avoid it, and I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to their attention. I can promise to do no more than that.

Theresa May: The overall issue of the scrutiny of legislation referred to by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) is important. I note the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the House that the Government will bring forward proposals in due course, but I hope that he agrees that one of the key issues is the House's ability to scrutinise legislation at an early opportunity before Ministers make decisions in the Council of Ministers. Will he assure the House that that is one of the key issues that the Government will consider and that their proposals will address it?

Nigel Griffiths: Of course it is vital that as many hon. Members as possible consider legislation at as early a stage as possible. I remind the right hon. Member that MEPs also have a role to play in this. Given the chaos that there appears to be in Europe in her party, perhaps she can tell the House which group her MEPs are going to join so that they can inform this process. We on the Labour Benches will do our best to make sure that there is proper scrutiny by this House, but there cannot be proper scrutiny by Conservative MEPs as long as we do not know which group they are in or are allying themselves to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Child Care Facilities

Julie Morgan: What plans the Commission has to reconsider the provision of child care facilities in the House.

Nick Harvey: The Commission has no plan to extend child care facilities, but if the Administration Committee wishes to make proposals, the Commission will of course consider them.

Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I urge him to take up the issue again and to make a special effort to see whether it is possible to provide child care facilities, perhaps in partnership with the local authority or with nearby neighbours? When I became a Member in 1997 I never imagined that nine years later, and after such an influx of women MPs, we would still have no child care facilities in this House. May I urge him to do all that he can to take that forward?

Nick Harvey: The Commission did consider the proposal for a child care facility based in the House two years ago, but considered that more flexibility would be provided by a child care voucher system. Many staff of the House come from outer-London boroughs or even beyond Greater London and receive greater benefit from a voucher system that enables them to use child care facilities nearer to home. The voucher system also benefits Members' staff working in constituencies. Nearly 150 people take advantage of the scheme, and the Commission felt that it offered more flexibility than something based here.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Pre-Legislative Scrutiny

Graham Allen: If he will make it his policy to encourage the pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills.

Nigel Griffiths: We are committed to encouraging the use of pre-legislative scrutiny for appropriate Bills. As hon. Members know, the publication of Bills in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny will not be possible for all Bills, but in recent years there has been a significant increase compared to previous periods. We want to see as many Bills as practicable published in draft form.

Graham Allen: I wonder whether Front Benchers on both sides have noticed that whenever Parliament is involved and pre-legislative scrutiny takes place in here and outside—be it on the Bill on higher education or the incapacity proposals we will hear about today—we end up with better law. I hope that Front Benchers will take that to heart and that my hon. Friend will formalise that arrangement so that the House may have pre-legislative scrutiny of every piece of legislation—which is, after all, the job that the electors put us here to do.

Nigel Griffiths: I am not entirely sure that Members would have the time for pre-legislative scrutiny of every piece of legislation. I recognise the value of pre-legislative scrutiny, which my hon. Friend has highlighted, but I cannot undertake that every piece of legislation will be subject to it. As I have said, there has been a considerable increase in the number of Bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny, and I hope that we may undertake more, as the value of it is recognised on both sides of the House.

Welfare Reform Green Paper

John Hutton: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's Green Paper, "A new deal for welfare: Empowering people to work". After eight years of a Labour Government, there are now 2.3 million more people in work. There are 1 million fewer people on benefits. Some 2 million children and almost 2 million pensioners no longer live in poverty.
	Since 1997, we have worked to build a modern, active welfare state. Through the minimum wage and tax credits, we have made work pay. Through record investment in the new deal and Jobcentre Plus, we are creating an enabling welfare state that responds to the needs of individuals. All that contrasts with the record of the Conservative party. Eighteen years of economic mismanagement and welfare failure resulted in 3 million more people of working age on benefit. Unemployment went up 50 per cent. The numbers claiming incapacity benefit trebled as it was used to hide mass long-term unemployment, and 3 million more children were left to live in poverty. It is time now finally to bring that shameful legacy of Thatcherism to an end. That is why ensuring that people have the right to work must be a fundamental responsibility of any modern Government.
	Work is good for people. Work can be the bedrock of personal responsibility, dignity and well-being. The challenge that we face today is how to build a modern welfare state that allows people to exercise the right to work when our national economy is changing more rapidly than at any time since the industrial revolution. It is not only our economy that is changing. We are confronted by a rapidly ageing society and a falling birth rate. Soon, and for the first time in our history, there will be more people over the age of 80 than under the age of five, so our welfare state must continue to adapt to meet those challenges.
	We have set ourselves the ambitious goal of an 80 per cent. employment rate. Its achievement will be critical for our nation: for individuals, for families and communities, for the process of wealth creation, for economic competitiveness and for social justice. I do not underestimate the scale of meeting that challenge. It will mean a million fewer people claiming incapacity benefit, a million more older people in work and 300,000 lone parents off benefit.
	The proposals that we are putting before the House today will make a significant contribution to realising those ambitions. Today's Green Paper builds on reforms that we have already introduced to remove the remaining barriers that hold people back from work. Our approach is based on a belief in an active welfare state that balances rights with responsibilities, and that provides work for those who can and support for those who cannot. Our proposals will be fair to claimants and fair to taxpayers.
	We will reform incapacity benefit. Nine out of 10 people who come on to incapacity benefit expect to get back into work, but if people have been on incapacity benefit for more than two years, they are more likely to retire or to die than ever to get another job. That cannot be right. The circumstances of claimants are changing, too. No longer is incapacity benefit associated with only Britain's industrial heartlands. There are more people on incapacity benefits in the south-east than in the north-east, and there are at least 150,000 people on incapacity benefit in every region in the UK. A third of new claimants now cite mental health problems as the main reason for coming on to the benefit, compared with a fifth in 1997. The issue affects all the country, not just parts of it.
	We have already made a start. The combination of increased support through the new deal for disabled people and the extension of rights through the Disability Discrimination Acts has started to improve the opportunities available to disabled people. Building on those reforms, our strategy is threefold. We will act to reduce the number of new claimants. We will provide greater help for those on the benefit to return to work. For the most severely sick and disabled, we will provide even more support.
	The Green Paper sets out proposals to improve workplace health. General practitioners have an important role to play in helping to ensure that their patients are able to work, so we will test the impact of putting employment advisers in GP surgeries. The first of those will be in place within a month. We will work with GPs and primary care professionals to support individuals to remain in work or return to work, and we will reform statutory sick pay to simplify it and ensure that it helps people to stay in work.
	We will reform the medical test, which acts as the gateway to incapacity benefit. We must ensure that the assessment process is focused on people's potential capability and capacity to engage in the labour market, rather than just their incapacity. Central to that will be the reform of the exempt category in the existing benefit structure. We must ensure that it no longer writes people off simply because they have a particular condition. For example, if people are blind, the current benefit structure assumes that they will always be incapable of work. That is wrong and unfair. We will correct it by reforming the criteria for exemptions.
	In future, all claimants will be assessed to determine not just their eligibility for benefit, but also their capability to work. I recognise the sensitivity and, of course, importance of getting this crucial aspect of the reforms right, and we will consult on that and other issues to ensure that we take a fair and equitable approach. We will also review the mental health component of the test.
	In addition to reforming the gateway, we will also reform the benefit itself. From 2008, new claimants will receive a new employment and support allowance, replacing the current system of incapacity benefits. The perverse incentives in the current system will be removed. Unlike today, no one will be eligible for the benefit until they have completed the proper medical assessments. Claimants will no longer receive more the longer they claim.
	For those who are exempt, the new benefit will be paid at a rate higher than the long-term rate today. As now, they will be able to take up support if they want to, but it will not be a condition of their benefit. However, for the vast majority—those who will not be exempt—the new benefit will have a clear framework of rights and, yes, responsibilities. People will be required to attend regular interviews, complete action plans and engage in work-related activity. The level of benefit they receive will be above the current long-term rate of incapacity benefit, but those refusing to engage in the help and support offered could see their benefit reduced progressively in stages, to the level of jobseeker's allowance.
	Existing claimants will remain on their existing benefit, which will be protected. Over the next few years, we will ask existing claimants to attend a work-focused interview and agree an action plan to take steps to return to work. Those who do not engage will, as now, potentially see their benefit reduced. That process of re-engagement has already started, but we can only ask more of people if the help and support that they need is in place. Our pathways to work pilots—combining employment and health support—have already shown significant success in getting people off benefit and back into employment.
	I can confirm that over the next two years we will be investing a further £360 million, from within my existing resources—from my own budget—to extend pathways to work to every part of Britain by 2008. For the first time, as a result of that investment, we will bring new hope and opportunity to some of the most disadvantaged communities.
	I am confident that the reforms outlined today will move us significantly closer to our goal of an 80 per cent. employment rate and the realisation of that vision. I believe that if we take the measures that I have outlined, and work together with health professionals, local authorities and employers, we can get 1 million people off incapacity benefit within a decade. In doing so, we could ultimately save up to £7 billion a year for taxpayers. That should be the scale of our ambition.
	We also need to do more to help lone parents to get back into work. Today, 56 per cent. of lone parents are back in work compared with only 45 per cent. eight years ago. We know that many lone parents want to work but face barriers to returning to the workplace. That is why we have extended support through the new deals and our 10-year child care strategy. Building on those reforms, we will increase the number of interviews lone parents are expected to attend. We will require those whose youngest child is at least 11 to attend interviews every three months, alongside piloting a new premium so that lone parents are better off if they take serious steps towards preparing for work. Those with younger children will have to attend twice a year, compared with once a year now. We will pilot more intensive support for lone parents during the first year of their claim and we will also simplify the rules so that lone parents are not penalised for joining work experience programmes.
	A key part of our strategy is to ensure that many more older people are able to remain in work for longer. I have spoken about the challenges of an ageing society. The Green Paper sets out proposals to extend all aspects of the new deal 25-plus to the over 50s. We will improve the back-to-work support for JSA claimants and their partners who are over 50, and will work with employers to extend flexible working opportunities to older workers. The Green Paper also sets out our plans to simplify the existing housing benefit system to improve work incentives and encourage personal responsibility for housing choices.
	The Green Paper sets out a challenging goal—one that central Government acting on their own cannot meet. Instead, we will need to engage those in the public, private and voluntary sectors in a new mission to improve employment opportunities in our disadvantaged areas. Moreover, there is a crucial role for local community leaders. Tackling worklessness can be achieved only if we work with partners in the local community—including the private and voluntary sectors—and harness their energy and commitment to deliver real progress. Some of our biggest cities in particular have a disproportionate number of benefit claimants.
	I am committed to opening a new chapter in the evolution of our modern welfare state. Local leaders will be asked to bring together local employment, training and health providers to help tackle concentrations of worklessness. They will be able to ask for greater flexibilities over the use of existing funding. In return, I will ensure that local communities share in the rewards of reducing the number of benefit claimants. For successful bids, I will provide seedcorn funding, and provide outcome payments when they meet their goals.
	The publication of our proposals today will start a three-month consultation process. We will engage with and listen carefully to all who respond—to everyone who shares our commitment to improving the employment prospects of those currently living on benefit. The proposals will help build a modern welfare state that responds to individual need, balances rights with responsibilities, tackles poverty and disadvantage, and invests for the long term.
	The Government stand ready to make that investment in our people and our country. That is why I commend the Green Paper to the House.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for letting me have an advance copy of his statement and the Green Paper.
	We broadly welcome the thrust of what the Secretary of State has said and we will study with great care the detail of the Green Paper. The world of work and the global economy are changing rapidly, and Britain's future prosperity depends on harnessing the skills and abilities of all its people. We cannot afford, either in social or in economic terms, to leave 2.7 million people abandoned on long-term benefits.
	Incapacity benefit has operated as a crude system that condemns hundreds of thousands of people who have something to offer to inactivity, deprivation and social exclusion. It creates and perpetuates dependency and squanders ability. It is failing individuals, it is failing our economy, and it is failing our society. It is no longer fit for purpose, so we welcome the Secretary of State's shift of emphasis to the abilities and skills that people have rather than the disabilities that they suffer.
	Let me be clear where we stand: we believe that work works. For those who can work, it restores self-esteem, it re-includes them in the social fabric of everyday life and it rescues them from the trap of long-term benefit dependency. It is the job of policy makers to ensure that work also pays—that the perverse disincentives of a bureaucratic benefits system are removed, so that the phenomenon of the benefit claimant who wants to work and who can work but who risks being worse off by doing so is consigned to history.
	The Secretary of State has been in his post for only four months, but his Government have been there for nearly nine years. We like much of what we have heard today, but he will forgive me if I say that we have heard much of it before. Much of what he has said was trailed in the five-year plan; we were promised this Green Paper before the summer recess. Further back, at the 1997 general election, Labour proclaimed itself the party of welfare reform, but while the Labour Government have done "sweet nothing"—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Those are not my words but the words of his own Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform. While the Labour Government have done "sweet nothing", total numbers claiming incapacity benefit have gone up, the numbers claiming for more than five years have gone up, the number of young people under 25 claiming has gone up by 70 per cent., and the number of people claiming on the grounds of mental and behavioural problems has doubled. So we will take no lectures on legacies from the right hon. Gentleman. The test of this Secretary of State will be whether he at last can start to deliver where his predecessors failed to do so.
	Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, his plans are presented against a backdrop of a slowing economy, steadily rising unemployment and an unprecedented funding crisis in NHS trusts, all of which will make it much harder now than it would have been a couple of years ago to achieve the laudable objectives of rehabilitating people and then getting them back into work.
	We have not yet had time to analyse the Green Paper in detail, but we have heard enough to identify some of the key areas where we will want to satisfy ourselves that the small print matches the headline rhetoric. Reform of the system so that it delivers a focus on what people can do, rather than what they cannot do, will require changes to the personal capability assessment, as the Secretary of State said. It will also require a change in the mindset of the tens of thousands of people who administer the system. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how the personal capability assessment will be reformed, in particular, to make what is still primarily a physical capacity test more responsive to the high levels of mental illness among claimants?
	Effective early intervention in respect of new claimants is the key to catching them before they become trapped in benefit dependency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that prompt and early medical assessment, coupled with the availability of rehabilitation resources, is the key? How will those resources be delivered, given the pressure that primary care trusts are under? Will he buy in NHS services with Department for Work and Pensions funding, or will he buy in rehabilitation services from providers in the private sector? Can he assure the House that he does have, somewhere in his locker, a more subtle approach to the vital question of engaging GPs in the early intervention process than that of offering them cash inducements?
	We will study the way in which the proposals, as well as dealing with new claimants, address the needs of the 2.7 million people currently on incapacity benefit. The Secretary of State may be tempted to concentrate on new claimants, but if the new focus is the right one it would be a betrayal both of those who are already on incapacity benefit and of the taxpayers funding them not to apply the same work-oriented approach to them. Off-flow rates have decreased by a third since 1997; will he set himself a specific target for getting current incapacity benefit claimants back into work?
	A couple of weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman identified 100 constituencies with the highest concentration of incapacity benefit claimants, which we cross-correlated with job vacancy figures. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that those constituencies have very few job vacancies—in fact, there are only a quarter as many job vacancies as there are incapacity benefit claimants. Does he recognise that in those areas simply refocusing and retraining people to exploit the skills and abilities that they have will not necessarily result in their finding work? How will he deal with the geographical mismatch of work opportunities and incapacity benefit claimants?
	Can the Secretary of State guarantee some concrete and effective measures that will ensure that private and voluntary sector organisations can compete on a level playing field with public sector organisations? The evidence for the contribution that they can make is clear in the results of the new deal for disabled people—a programme that has been substantially delivered by private and voluntary sector contractors—but the National Audit Office report shows that the playing field is still tilted against private and voluntary sector organisations when contracts are placed. Only if that bias is removed can such organisations play their full role—the role that the right hon. Gentleman says he wants them to play. What specifically is he doing to deal with that matter and is he willing to spend some of his political capital standing up to those who will no doubt fight tooth and nail to preserve the predominance of public sector provision in this area?
	In the long run, reducing the number of people on incapacity benefit will save substantial sums of public money, but in the short term significant investment of resources will be required. Can the Secretary of State tell the House over what period the reforms that he is proposing will become self-financing?
	The right hon. Gentleman referred in his statement to incapacity benefit as masking long-term unemployment figures. Can he confirm that claimants of his new benefit will be included in the unemployment count?
	Finally, it has been reported in the press that the implementation of the proposals that the Secretary of State has outlined today will depend on the installation of a major new IT system. Is that true? If so, given the history of problems with IT systems in his Department, what reassurance can he give the House that the bold initiatives that he outlined will not be beset by the same kind of IT problems and delays as we have seen in the past?
	The Secretary of State deserves credit for finally grasping the nettle of incapacity benefit reform, but the true test of his resolve is yet to come. Will he hold firm to the principles that he outlined today? Will he resist the temptation to tack and to trim in response to Labour Back-Bench demands? Will he take effective action to bring about the increase in private and voluntary sector involvement that he says he wants? If he performs on all those issues, we will support his proposals and work towards a consensus that is not afraid to say that for all who are capable of work, work is the best option, for individuals, society and Britain's future prosperity.

John Hutton: May I start by welcoming the hon.Gentleman's commitment to work with the Government to bring about these important reforms? I welcome his support and his recognition that incapacity benefit has failed millions of people. Most Labour Members would probably prefer the Conservatives to have done something about it when they had 18 years in government. [Interruption.] As many of us can testify, no such measures were taken.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the record of the present Government, and his hon. Friends have been shouting rudely about it. Incapacity benefit numbers fell last year for the first time ever in the history of incapacity benefit. The numbers coming on to incapacity benefit are down by a third, so the argument that no progress has been made is totally untrue. We are making progress. The reforms will allow us to make further progress still.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the position in the labour market. I remind him that we have in the UK now the highest employment rate of all the countries in the G8, something never achieved under the Conservative Government. We remember their record on unemployment. I do not want to say any more about that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me how the personal capabilities assessment will be reformed. We say in the Green Paper, and I am sorry if I did not make it clear today, that we will be convening an expert group to work with the Department to undertake that reform of the medical procedures. It is important that we do that. We want to build consensus around the new system. That is very important for the success of the reforms, for various reasons. People must have confidence that the assessments are right, and we will work with the disability movement to make sure that that is true.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that prevention is the best tactic that we should deploy to prevent people from coming on to benefits in the first place. The Green Paper contains a series of measures—I did not go through all of them this afternoon—which will make a significant difference, including supporting greater investment in occupational health. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
	Where will the health care providers come from? They will come from the NHS and some will come from the private sector. I was in Derby recently and saw at first hand a hugely successful strategy of involving cognitive behavioural therapists employed from the private sector to provide services for people on incapacity benefit.
	I can confirm that existing incapacity benefit claimants will have access to the pathways to work extensions. The hon. Gentleman asked about the work that we were doing with existing IB claimants and said that the focus should be on them. Of course, all the work that we do between now and 2008—I think it will be 2008 when we have legislated for the new benefit and got the system in place—will, by definition, have to be with existing claimants under the existing IB system. There is no one else to focus on, so they will have plenty of opportunity to work with us and get back into work.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about vacancies, I saw his figures, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House. I make two comments about his figures and his analysis. First, Jobcentre Plus holds only about a third of the total number of vacancies in the country at any one moment in time. His figures were based on Jobcentre Plus vacancies. We need to bear that in mind. Secondly, as we all know, some of our constituents work in other constituencies where there might be more vacancies. It is true that that happens, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman recognised that.
	We envisage the private and voluntary sectors being very much involved in the pathways to work projects across the country, because we know that if we get the contractual frameworks right and choose our partners correctly, the voluntary sector will be able to make a hugely important contribution to improving the service that we offer. It is true that these reforms will require significant investment. It is equally true to say that we are the first Government ever who have been prepared to stand here and say that we will make that investment to get people with a disability back into work.
	The hon. Gentleman's final question was about whether we would count people on the new employment and support allowance as unemployed. No, we will not, for one very obvious reason, which I am surprised that he did not recognise. To count as being unemployed, a person has to be available immediately to take up employment. The very notion here is that we are dealing with people with a measure of illness and incapacity, and we will work with them. We are not going to apply the full jobseeker's allowance conditionality regime to people on incapacity benefit; it would be wrong to do so.
	The hon. Gentleman said that I had been in my post for four months. In fact, it is two months; it just feels like four months.

Terry Rooney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his very encouraging and positive statement. Does he agree that all those on incapacity benefit have a civil right to work, just as anybody else does? Does he also agree that the state's role should be to remove any barriers that are preventing those people from taking up employment and escaping from poverty? We still have a major problem in this country because too many employers discriminate against disabled people. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government are going to do, collectively, on that issue?

John Hutton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. I agree that people with a disability should have the right to work, just like anyone else in our country. The reforms that I have outlined today will mark a significant step forward in that regard. We were the first Government to legislate for comprehensive civil rights for people with a disability, and we will do nothing in these reforms that will compromise or undermine the civil rights of people with a disability.
	In relation to my hon. Friend's important point about employers, we have instigated and are continuing to support a very important programme—the access to work programme—into which we are putting about £60 million. That programme helps people on incapacity benefit who are going back into the world of work to make the necessary adjustments. Sometimes that could involve adjustments to the physical environment in their workplace. We will continue to offer that help, and to emphasise that support. There are also provisions in disability discrimination legislation to require employers to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace. That will be very important. We are also working with a significant network of employers, through the employers coalitions. For example, many big, significant employers are working with Jobcentre Plus to ensure that there are vacancies for people with a disability, which is crucial. The proposals that I have outlined today will help in all these areas, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to support them.

David Laws: May I also thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement? We share with him the ambition of seeking to help people with disabilities back into work and ensuring that the benefit system and our training systems are designed to help them. The Secretary of State has rightly set a very ambitious target for the reduction of the number of people on incapacity benefit by 1 million over the next 10 years. Does he agree, however, that even if he achieves that, it will take the level of people on incapacity back down only to the 1991 level, which was itself double the level that was inherited in 1979? There is therefore a long way to go, even if the target of 1 million is achieved.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions about the reform of incapacity benefit. Does he accept that delivering tailored support for people with diverse medical conditions is going to be quite expensive? Is he confident that he has the resources to do that, against the background of a decline in Jobcentre Plus staff of some 20,000—almost one in four—employees between 2002 and 2008?
	The Secretary of State spoke of an extra £360 million over the next two years. A quick look at the figures suggests to me that that is a good deal less per person than the amount that he has been spending on pathways to work. Has there been any contraction of expenditure per person to make this scheme possible?
	May I ask about changes in the benefit system? Has there been any extension of means-testing that is implicit in the new employment and support allowance? That is not clear from the Green Paper, and it would be helpful to have it on the record.
	Does the Secretary of State plan to take further action to make the benefit system more accessible to those who can work only for limited periods? Will he also tell us whether he has ruled out for good the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—a single working-age benefit with top-ups for people with disabilities?
	Safeguards are vital for some of the groups whom we are discussing. The Secretary of State clearly indicated that he would undertake to complete the assessment relating to the new personal capability test within three months. That is important, because until people have passed the test they will be stuck on the jobseeker's allowance rate, which is considerably lower than the rate that they would obtain today. Can the Secretary of State offer us any reassurance about what will happen to people who are not seen within three months? Will they automatically move to a higher rate?
	What protection will there be in terms of sanctions for people who might otherwise lose their employment and support allowance? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is real concern, particularly about people with mental health difficulties that cannot easily be detected? There is worry about whether there will be a proper process of scrutiny, with appeal rights.
	We are willing to work constructively with the Secretary of State to find solutions to extremely important issues that have been neglected for too long. Does he accept that today's announcement and the target that he has set represent the easy part, and that the test will be whether he can deliver the improvements during the years ahead?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the direction of travel that we set out in the Green Paper. We look forward to working with him in the months ahead. I am confident that we can deliver the programmes of help and support that I have announced. As I confirmed to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), it will involve the use of private and voluntary providers as well, which I consider entirely sensible.
	My proposals involve no extension of means-testing. Yes, we are considering making more part-time options available to people on incapacity benefit and lone parents, and we mentioned some in the Green Paper.
	The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked about long-term reform. He has only had a few minutes in which to look at the Green Paper, but the final chapter sets out the options, and picks up some of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been making. We have already announced changes in the linking rules, extending the 52-week period of grace allowing people leaving incapacity benefit to test whether a new job works for them to two years. They can return to the existing level of incapacity benefit without having to reapply. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. Of course there will be proper appeal mechanisms in relation to any benefit sanction initiated here.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could guarantee that we could complete the medical tests within 12 weeks. Yes, that is the commitment that we are making. His supplementary question, asking me to revise the benefits paid in the event of a failure, therefore does not arise.

Peter Kilfoyle: Given that last year the Secretary of State's Department closed the biggest employer in my constituency, an area of high unemployment, and is now busy closing the jobcentre in Walton, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive my scepticism about where and how these jobs will be delivered.
	I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would clarify one point. The figure of 2.7 million is constantly bandied about. Does it refer to claimants and recipients of incapacity benefit, or only to claimants? If it refers only to claimants, what is the true figure for recipients?

John Hutton: My hon. Friend is right: the Department is currently undergoing a major reorganisation of its Jobcentre Plus services. It is also a major investment, however. We are spending more than £2 billion on trying to improve the service for his constituents and others. As he will know, that involves change. I entirely respect the position that he takes in relation to his constituency, but we are trying to improve the service nationally, and have set out a course of action that we think will achieve that.
	In relation to my hon. Friend's specific point about the 2.7 million figure, 2.74 million people are currently in receipt of either the means-tested income support element, which supports those on incapacity benefit, or contributory incapacity benefit. I have made it clear today that we want to reduce that figure, and I hope that he will work with me to make sure that we do.

George Young: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but does he accept that on occasions there will be a genuine disagreement between his Department's medical assessment of an individual's ability to return to work and that individual's assessment with his or her GP? Does he have any plans to review the appeals system, which many people find slow, complex and bureaucratic, with a view to enhancing its efficiency and credibility?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—yes, we do, and we set out three specific proposals in the Green Paper that will address that. I agree that it is not acceptable for 50 per cent. of such appeals to be subsequently overturned. We need to consider that fairly and reasonably. That will be part of the review of assessments that we have set in train today, and if we can work with a variety of different stakeholders to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the medical assessment procedure, I hope that we can alleviate the need for so many appeals.

Frank Field: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the resolve that he has shown today, noting that he does so as the economic boom slows down and the welfare-to-work budget is fully spent. Does he accept that many of our constituents are anxious to go back to work but are worried that if they get a part-time job, the job might fold and they will lose housing benefit? In those 100 constituencies with the highest number of incapacity claimants, will he scrap all the restrictions on part-time work, provided that claimants tell their local office what they are doing? They could be reviewed within, say, six months, to see in what other ways we can build on the successes that they have made individually, without waiting for anyone at the centre or anywhere else to direct them.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Yes, we are prepared to consider the issues to which he has referred, particularly in relation to the permitted hours rule and the notional earnings rule. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform has indicated that we are examining those areas, and I am happy to talk to him and other right hon. and hon. Friends who have an interest in this matter. I remind him that one of the important parts of the pathways to work schemes, which have helped enormously, has been the £40 return-to-work credit, which has helped bridge the gap between benefits and work. It was entirely remiss of me—I should have paid proper tribute to my predecessors as Secretary of State, some of whom I can see in the Chamber. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made some of the important early decisions, which were right and proper. I want to pay tribute to their contribution, too.

Iris Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that many people would love to be back at work, but the Government have a history of being mean with drugs such as Enbrel, Remicade and beta interferon? We could see many more people off benefits and back in the work force if they got those life-changing drugs.

John Hutton: I respect the hon. Lady's argument and the point that she has made. The changes that we have made have been designed to speed up access to some of those latest medical interventions and drugs, and we have made significant progress in doing that. In relation to Northern Ireland specifically, she will be aware that these particular reforms are a matter for Northern Ireland, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be publishing these proposals for consultation in Northern Ireland shortly.

Andrew Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I welcome the measured way in which he has brought forward this statement. In particular, I welcome the extension that he has announced of the successful pathways to work programme to the whole country. Does he agree that availability of good-quality rehabilitation and a continuing drive against discrimination in the workplace are crucial for the confidence of benefit recipients and for the prospects of success in helping more of them into jobs? Can he tell the House a bit more about rehabilitation and other support services that will reassure people that this is about helping them forward?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and his decision to roll out pathways has given us the opportunity to go further. We have had two years of experience with pathways. In relation to his point about condition management programmes, we know from the success of pathways schemes that it is important for benefit recipients to have access to good-quality rehabilitation. That may be physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy or any other service that we can provide. The NHS has been a good partner in delivering those services as part of the pathways to work schemes, but I think that it will be necessary to broaden the range of providers who deliver those services to Jobcentre Plus and to benefit recipients. We will work in partnership with organisations locally as well as nationally to ensure that there is the widest possible access to services that will help recipients to get off benefit and back into work. I am grateful for everything that my right hon. Friend has done.

Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State has set himself the admirable aim of getting 1 million people off IB in 10 years. Since he has been so specific, can he tell the House how many people he expects this package to get off IB by the end of this Parliament—by, say, June 2010?

John Hutton: No, I am not going to set annual targets. We are not going to do that. This programme of investment and reform will take at least a decade to deliver. I think that all my hon. Friends will be slightly surprised to hear a Tory Member of Parliament asking for more targets. We are not going to do that.

Howard Stoate: May I tell my right hon. Friend as a GP that, by the time someone has been off work for six months, say, with a bad back, their chances of getting back to work are disappointingly low? Therefore, the real challenge is to prevent people needing incapacity benefit in the first place. I am particularly pleased by his statement that he wants to introduce employment advisers into primary care services, which is extremely welcome and overdue. Will he ensure that those advisers will be involved with the patient from the moment they are off sick, so that we can reduce the amount of time that they are off sick, and they go back to work before they get anywhere near incapacity benefit?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We should wait to see what the employment advisers can do for patients in primary care trusts. I am confident that they will be able to make a significant difference and provide more choice for people, rather than people being presented just with the unpalatable prospect of being signed off and going on to benefit. We should be able to do more for people in that situation. I hope that the other potential spin-off benefit of putting employment advisers into GP practices will be to relieve some of the pressure and work load on GPs themselves.

Angela Browning: The Secretary of State has repeatedly referred to getting people back into work, but how will he deal with the group of people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who have never been in paid employment? I am talking about people with lifelong disabilities such as autistic spectrum disorder, chronic mental health conditions and learning disabilities. Is he going to have a special package for them, because to put them through the same process as someone with a back injury would be wrong? They need much more specialised assistance. I would welcome it if some got the opportunity to get into work, but that will not be easy. It will require a lot of resources. Will he bear it in mind that many of them have undertaken independent living and that maintaining independent living and not being overburdened with paid employment will require a lot of flexible packages? Perhaps they can work part-time—even a quarter of a week, not necessarily half of it—in order that independent living remains viable.

John Hutton: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's extensive knowledge and experience in this area. I would be happy to discuss with her any of those ideas in more detail. That is right and proper. The whole point of the reforms is to try to personalise and individualise as much of the support and help that we provide to people on incapacity benefits as we can. I do not think that a one-size-fits-all approach would be right. I indicated in response to other questions that we are prepared to look at some of the alternatives to encourage part-time work. Nothing in the proposals affects the issue of disability living allowance. We are not proposing any changes to that. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will outline shortly further proposals in relation to individual budgets, which I know that the hon. Lady follows with some interest. I hope that that will provide greater choice and flexibility, to which she has referred.

Michael Meacher: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are considerable differences between north and south? The percentage of working-age adults claiming incapacity benefit, for example, in Merseyside, south Wales and the north-east is six to 10 times higher than in the south-east. We all know that the previous Conservative Government shifted probably over 1 million people off unemployment benefit on to incapacity benefit to get the unemployment figures down. Does that not suggest that we cannot solve this problem purely by getting tough on incapacity benefit? It can be solved only in conjunction with a much tougher regional industrial strategy to increase employment opportunities in areas of persistent high unemployment.

John Hutton: I largely agree with my right hon. Friend. This is not a punitive package of measures; I think that that is clear, and I hope that he is clear about it. The challenge for us on the Government side of the House is to develop proposals that are radical and have that far-reaching effect, but are not characterised by the label "punitive". I do not believe that that would work. I agree with my right hon. Friend that if we are to succeed in moving people from incapacity benefit towards the opportunity of taking up employment, we shall need a dynamic local labour market and a strong national economy—and I am confident that if the Labour Government continue with the way in which they have managed the economy, we shall achieve that goal as well.

Michael Weir: The Secretary of State has mentioned rolling out pathways to work throughout the UK by 2008. Many disability groups have expressed concern about whether the scheme covering the whole country will be of the same quality as the undoubtedly successful pilot schemes. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that when the scheme is rolled out, it will have all the functions that the current pilots have enjoyed?

John Hutton: The national roll-out of pathways to work will certainly be focused on ensuring quality, and outcomes for people who are disabled. I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance.

Madeleine Moon: I welcome the statement, as the pathways to work project in my constituency, organised largely through the Shaw Trust, has been incredibly successful. How will the changes to housing benefit affect young people who have had difficult relationships and family breakdown and have   ended up in voluntary housing settings such as Ty Cornel in the Porthcawl area, and those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), in the Yellow project in Maesteg? They need to get back into education so that they can move forward, but they cannot then access housing benefit, because they are past the statutory breakdown age. Will we allow young people to stay in education and still be able to access housing benefit?

John Hutton: The education maintenance allowance has, I hope, been an important contribution to securing what my hon. Friend is concerned about. The chapter in the Green Paper dealing with the reform of housing benefit makes it clear that the local housing allowance that we propose to replace housing benefit in the private rented sector will be available for new claimants. People who are currently claiming housing benefit will stay under the existing rules.

Peter Law: Coming from south Wales, from a very depressed constituency, as I do, I ask the Secretary of State how he can justify these proposals. How can a Labour Government justify proposals that will put poor people further down in the poverty trap? That is a disgrace, and something that the Labour party will feel very ashamed of.

John Hutton: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Green Paper, because we are not cutting incapacity benefit for existing claimants. We will introduce a more generous employment and support allowance in 2008, and we are providing more help and support for his constituents. I am utterly astonished that he has not had the good grace to recognise that today.

Roger Berry: Obviously, we shall all want to look at the details in the Green Paper, but in view of previous debates on incapacity benefits in this House and elsewhere, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's very positive statement, particularly the speedy national roll-out of pathways to work, which is about recognising the barriers that disabled people face and taking the actions necessary to remove those barriers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key essentials is to ensure that those responsible for giving support and advice to benefit claimants have the skills and the resources to do their job properly? Without that, there is a great danger that this magnificent way of dealing with the problem might not be as effective as would otherwise be the case.

John Hutton: My hon. Friend is exactly right and I pay tribute to his work in this area. It is very important that we invest in our disability employment advisers to make sure that they have the skills and expertise and, yes, the resources to do the jobs that we want them to do. As he knows, as part of the changes that we are making to Jobcentre Plus, we are trying to shift more people from the back office into the front office, in order that they can do the front-of-house work that needs to be done with benefit claimants directly. I hope that that will make a difference and ensure that the quality of advice that people receive is as good as it should be.

David Heathcoat-Amory: This Green Paper has the very general title of "A new deal for welfare", so why does it not tackle the main feature of the Government's welfare policies in the past eight years, which is the vast extension of means-testing? Does the Secretary of State agree that the means-tested society that we have created is not only incredibly bureaucratic, but creates severe disincentives to long-term saving and self-reliance? When is he going to reform that aspect of his policies?

John Hutton: In any welfare system, it is important—the right hon. Gentleman will not want to argue against this—to target specific and additional help on the poorest people in society. I make no apology for the fact that, through tax credits, the pension credit and other initiatives that we have introduced, we have lifted literally millions of our fellow citizens out of poverty altogether. That is a record of solid achievement that all Labour Members are proud of. These reforms are about incapacity benefit, older people and lone parents; that is the focus of the Green Paper, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will benefit from a thoroughly good read of it.

Anne Begg: There will perhaps be a collective sigh of relief following the Green Paper's publication today. At long last, we have something to discuss, and I am sure that disabled organisations will engage with the Secretary of State and his Department and debate these proposals. There will also be a sigh of relief at the fact that many of the scare stories running in the press about how punitive the Government were going to be seem not to have been fulfilled; that said, we shall have to look at the detail.
	Will the Secretary of State assure me that any new benefit that he puts in place will not contain the structural barriers associated with incapacity benefit, which puts obstacles in the way of disabled people and makes it very difficult for them to get work? Will he also provide support for those who need help, particularly those with mental health problems, who need assistance in accessing all those aspects of society that the rest of us take for granted?

John Hutton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The reforms that we are making are designed to take out the perverse incentives in the current system, and to provide more help and support. We want to develop these proposals over the next few months in dialogue and consultation with the widest possible cross-section of organisations with an interest in these matters, in order to ensure that we can design out, at the beginning of this process, any change that might have the consequences referred to by my hon. Friend.

Philip Dunne: The Secretary of State said earlier that he acknowledges that the longer people are on incapacity benefit, the more support, help and training they often need to get off that benefit and into work. Has he been able to discuss with representatives of the various training bodies—they are often voluntary groups—the contractual arrangements entered into by his Department, which were described to the Work and Pensions Committee last week as nothing less than a shambles?

John Hutton: Yes, we are certainly talking to the training and employment providers about precisely that issue, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform is looking into in particular.

Ronnie Campbell: The one thing that worries me is the position of older people—particularly those who have worked all their life in heavy industry—who, when they reach the age of 62 or 63, go on to incapacity benefit. The last time that such a change was introduced, officers of the then Department of Health and Social Security were given targets, which they had to meet. Of course, the first people whom they went for were those who had worked all their life in heavy industry, who sustained many injuries in doing so. Will there be targets this time?

John Hutton: No, there will be no targets. We are not going to follow that approach. It would be disreputable to go about reforming incapacity benefit in that way, but we are not going to write off people who happen to be of a certain age. We must look carefully at the support that we provide for older people. In many parts of the country, although perhaps not in my hon. Friend's area, people are choosing to work longer, if possible. A modern, proper welfare state must provide employment support for people, irrespective of their age. However, we are not going after people in the way that my hon. Friend described—

Ronnie Campbell: So no targets?

John Hutton: There will be no targets in the way that my hon. Friend suggested. I want to work with organisations, such as the training and employment providers, to give people on benefit the best possible help and support.

Paul Rowen: I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State has made, and he is right that unemployment, incapacity benefit claims and poverty occur in specific areas. He said that action would be taken on that: will he elaborate, and say what he has in mind?

John Hutton: The Green Paper sets out the broad direction of travel that we intend to take, and already we have had some discussions with city leaders about what the proposal would look like. I want to mobilise resources outside the Department in this matter. I am looking to people in the private and voluntary sectors, and in local government and beyond, to put together a new approach to delivering welfare-to-work services in our big cities. We shall explore the details with city leaders over the next few weeks and months, and I hope to let the first contracts next year and begin the new way of delivering welfare.

Points of Order

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Government will deliver a considered statement on today's massive job losses at Lexmark in Rosyth? For obvious and tragic reasons, the Dunfermline and West Fife constituency does not have an MP at the moment. Does not that make it all the more important for the Government to make a considered response to issues as substantial as the Lexmark redundancies—as opposed to the cursory, complacent and useless remarks made by the Secretary of State at Scottish questions earlier today?

Mr. Speaker: I am always concerned at any loss of jobs anywhere in the UK, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that this is not a matter for the Chair. However, hon. Members can put down parliamentary questions or ask for meetings with the Minister concerned. That is all that I can say on the matter.

John Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it right for a Member of Parliament to use a point of order for blatant electioneering purposes, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) just did?

Mr. Speaker: Points of order are used for many purposes.

Council Tax Benefit (Pensions Entitlement)

Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that persons who own their own homes and are in receipt of State Pension should automatically receive Council Tax Benefit; to require local authorities to inform all such persons about their rights to Council Tax Benefit; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill has all-party support. It is about an incredible Government IOU, and about giving money back to home-owning pensioners. It is not as though the Government do not want to give back the money involved, as they say that they have it and want to give it back. The people to whom it is owed—pensioners on pension credit—do not know that it is theirs or that it is owed to them, yet they are among the least able people in our communities to afford to lose out on it.
	What is the problem? Specifically, it is the payment of council tax benefit, billions of pounds of which is going unclaimed. Pensioners deserve the benefits to which they are entitled and the tax relief to which they have contributed during their working lives.
	The numbers are staggering. According to the most recent figures revealed by the Government, pensioners miss out each year on a cut to their council tax bill worth an average £426. Four pensioners out of 10 miss out on the total of £750 million in council tax benefit that goes unclaimed each year, and fewer than half of all home-owning pensioners claim the money that they should get. The money is like a lottery ticket that has fallen behind the sofa.
	This weekend, there will be huge publicity for the EuroMillions lottery jackpot, in which the prize is more than £100 million. Many pensioners will probably buy a ticket, and the chances are that they will not win. Yet council tax benefit worth 750 times the value of the winning lottery ticket is unclaimed every week, every month, every year. Why? The money goes unclaimed because the onus is on pensioners to claim it. Yet most do not know they are owed it. The Government say that pensioners can call up the Department for Work and Pensions or visit it or go online. But why would they, if they do not know that they are owed almost £500 a year?
	The onus should not be on pensioners to jump hurdles to make a claim. It should be the other way round. The Government should be obliged to make claiming as straightforward as possible to enable pensioners to claim the missing £750 million. If one owns one's own home, one qualifies, but there is no box on the council tax bill that one can tick. There should be. If one receives pension credit, one qualifies, but there is no box to tick on that paperwork for council tax relief. There should be. It is a scandal that some of the people who most need the Government's help are being left to second-guess the system. What makes it a scandal is not that the money is not there or that Ministers do not want to give it away, but simply that no one seems to agree on how it should be given back.
	Even if pensioners know that they can get the benefit, how easy is it to claim? It is not easy at all. My research assistant and I tried to work through the process. We Googled council tax benefit, and the BBC website came up, promising that I could
	"download claim forms for some benefits, obtain leaflets, publications and other information, including details of your social security office"
	by going to the DWP website. Well, I went, and I searched for council tax benefit. There were no results.
	I went to the section for pensioners. Council tax is not even listed. I went back to the part on professionals and advisers on the Department's home page. I got tantalisingly close but sadly got only the "Adjudication and Operations Circulars for Council Tax Benefit", dating back to 2001. I finally found the form by using the A to Z index. There is no clear explanation of council tax relief for pensioners, and only one mention:
	"Unless you are aged 60 or over and receive the guarantee credit of Pension Credit, savings over £16,000 usually mean you cannot get Council Tax Benefit."
	That hardly screams out to pensioners to come and claim their tax relief.
	The form is 40 pages long. It is not written in plain English. It asks about self-employment, dependants and savings, none of which is relevant or specific to pensioners and council tax benefit. It would be easier to keep buying the lottery tickets.
	Yet, frustratingly, Ministers are convinced that the system is working and that there is no need for a tick-box. Why are they convinced of that? I have no idea, because what has happened since I first raised the issue in the House almost two years ago is that the amount going unclaimed has remained almost the same. When I questioned the Prime Minster about why half of home-owning pensioners are failing to get council tax relief, he said:
	"Of course we support the principle of getting as many people as possible the benefits to which they are entitled, and we have made certain changes both to the forms that people have and in relation to the information campaign . . . of course we want to ensure that . . . people . . . actually get to them."—[Official Report, 8 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1168.]
	That echoed the concerns of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in discussions with me when I proposed a private Member's Bill on the matter, which ran out of parliamentary time.
	I fully accept that the Government are concerned, but their solution is unimaginative and uninspiring. In March 2004, Ministers undertook a publicity campaign, with flyers being sent to 20,000 organisations. It did not work. A year later when my private Member's Bill came to the House, the unclaimed council tax relief stood at £750 million. In response to my Bill, the then Secretary of State told me that adverts would be placed in the regional press calling on pensioners to claim. I did not see the adverts; I did not hear about the adverts. Clearly large numbers of pensioners never saw them.
	Publicity campaigns alone often do not work. They are ad hoc. They are a scattergun approach to get people the help they need. A pensioner who does not read a particular newspaper one day or pick up a particular leaflet one week or listen to a particular radio programme one weekend is unlikely to get the benefit to which he or she is entitled. Yet that is what was happening to 1.4 million pensioners every year after the second publicity campaign in response to my private Member's Bill. Just before Christmas, when I decided to reintroduce this Bill, BBC News online was reporting Age Concern as highlighting that 1.4 million eligible older people miss out on council tax benefit, resulting in up to £750 million remaining unclaimed each year. It said that the average amount unclaimed was £7.50 a week. Those are not my sums or even the charity's sums. Apparently they are based on conversations with Department for Work and Pensions officials and they are the DWP's figures. But Ministers persist in saying that they will pursue yet more publicity campaigns. Why? Again, I have no idea, because clearly publicity campaigns alone are not the answer.
	What is more astonishing is the press release that the DWP put out when it did the first publicity campaign. It said:
	"Some pensioners are missing out on a 100 per cent. refund because they are tearing up their Council Tax Bills."
	What a crazy statement. When this hits the most vulnerable in our community hardest, it is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that money owed to groups such as pensioners is given back. The money belongs to the pensioners; end of story. It is not the Chancellor's; it is not any Government Department's; it is not the local authorities'; it is the pensioners'. Pensioners should not have to fill out 40-page forms of irrelevant questions to get what is owed to them. It should just be given back. Pensioners paid the money in; now the Government should give it back.
	The 40-page forms should be scrapped. At the most there should be a tick box on the council tax form or onthe pension credit paperwork, not 40 pages of paperwork. It should not be the responsibility of local authorities to do this. They have not got the money; the Chancellor has. They did not take the money; the Chancellor did. Publicity campaigns are not working. Too much council tax relief is going unclaimed.
	This is the second time that I have put this Bill before Parliament. This is the second time that I have received cross-party support for the Bill. This is the second time that I have been told by the Government that they are dealing with the problem when the problem remains. Enough is enough. It is time that Ministers ended the lottery of council tax benefit. Pensioners are entitled to this money. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to ensure that this huge sum of unclaimed council tax benefit goes to those who need it—pensioners who are entitled to it. I have pleasure in introducing the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, Tom Brake, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Dr. Hywel Francis, Mr. Jeremy Hunt, Mr. Boris Johnson, Grant Shapps, and Mr. Edward Vaizey.

Council Tax Benefit (Pensions Entitlement)

Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to provide that persons who own their own homes and are in receipt of state pension should automatically receive council tax benefit; to require local authorities to inform all such persons about their rights to council tax benefit; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 116].

Government of Wales Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 23 January].

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2005–06, Government White Paper: Better Governance for Wales, HC 551, and the Government's response thereto, Third Special Report of the Committee, Session 2005–06, HC 839, are relevant.]

Clause 94
	 — 
	Amendment of Schedule 5

Amendment proposed [23 January]: No. 180, in page 51, line 26, after 'Assembly', insert
	'in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two thirds of the total number of Assembly seats'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
	Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Alan Haselhurst: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 154, in page 51, line 28, after 'approved', insert '(i)'.
	Amendment No. 155, in page 51, line 29, at end insert
	'or
	(ii)   has been laid before each House of Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, but has been rejected by the House of Lords.
	(5A)   If subsection (5)(b)(ii) applies, the Order in Council shall not take affect until one year has elapsed since the date on which the House of Commons came to the resolution.'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 51, line 29, at end insert—
	'(5A)   In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly, as specified in subsection (5)(a), but there not being within 60 days of that approval, an approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament as specified in subsection (5)(b), subsection (5) shall cease to have effect in the case of that draft statutory instrument, and the procedure specified in subsection (5B) will then apply to that draft statutory instrument.
	(5B)   The procedure which will apply in cases specified in subsection (5A) will be that no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council—
	(a)   has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly, and
	(b)   the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.'.
	Amendment No. 187, in page 51, line 29, at end insert—
	'(5A)   Any draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under this section must be accompanied by—
	(a)   a detailed memorandum setting out the scope of the proposal, its practical effects on Wales and the legislative authority that would pass to the National Assembly, and
	(b)   a draft of the proposed Assembly Measure.
	(5B)   Before an Order in Council is subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make a motion to refer the draft of the Order in Council, along with the draft Assembly Measure, to the Welsh Grand Committee for consideration.
	(5C)   A report of the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the draft Order in Council and Assembly Measure must have been available to both Houses of Parliament for a period of not less than 60 days before any Order in Council is made under this section.'.
	Amendment No. 211, in page 51, line 29, at end insert—
	'(5A)   But subsection (5) is not satisfied unless the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.'.
	Amendment No. 212, in page 51, line 29, at end insert—
	'(5A)   But subsection (5) is not satisfied unless, before the draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons
	(a)   the Welsh Grand Committee has debated the draft, and
	(b)   the Welsh Affairs Committee has reported to the effect that it approves the draft.'.
	Amendment No. 122, in page 51, line 38, leave out 'either'.
	Amendment No. 123, in page 51, line 39, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 1 on page 52.
	Amendment No. 181, in page 51, line 39, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 41.
	Amendment No. 53, in page 51, line 40, at beginning insert 'if subsection (7A) applies,'.
	Amendment No. 54, in page 51, line 41, at end insert—
	'(7A)   This subsection applies only if the Secretary of State has reason to believe that the Assembly Measure made under the order—
	(a)   would have an adverse effect no any matter which is not specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5,
	(b)   might have a serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England,
	(c)   would have an adverse impact on the law as it applies in England, or
	(d)   would be incompatible with any international obligation or the interests of defence or national security.'.
	New clause 4—Refusal to lay draft statutory instrument—
	'In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly, as specified in section 94 (5) (a), followed by a refusal to lay that draft statutory instrument before each House of Parliament, as specified in section 94 (7) (b), the Counsel General or the Assembly may refer to the Supreme Court for decision the question whether the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to lay the draft statutory instrument was made reasonably in the circumstances and intra vires.'.

Nick Ainger: Sir Alan, as I was saying only at 10 o'clock last night—

Chris Ruane: It seems like only yesterday.

Nick Ainger: Indeed it does. We were discussing the group of amendments beginning with No. 180, and I was talking about the proposal in the amendment that would require a two-thirds majority before any Order in Council process could begin. I was saying that the Order in Council process is one that is completely different from the Order in Council that would introduce a referendum on primary powers for the Assembly. It is a completely and utterly different order. An Order in Council, for example, that would have brought in the legislation that would have enabled the Assembly to consider the legislation on the public administration ombudsman or transport in Wales would be very different.
	I wish to remind the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of the situation when parties present their manifestos at election time. If the Welsh Assembly Government that is formed in 2007 is elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment and if that commitment needs new legislation to be delivered, it would be a clear basis for a proposed Order in Council to enable the Assembly to legislate on that matter. With the electoral arrangements that we have for the National Assembly for Wales, it is unlikely that the ruling group or party would have a two-thirds majority. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would mean that a party or group of parties, having fought an election on a proposal, would not be able to legislate for that proposal.
	Even when no specific manifesto commitment is involved, such a request will not come out of the blue. To take the transport example that I mentioned earlier, I placed in the Library the Order in Council example with its explanatory memorandum. Before the draft Bill came before the House, we had a full report by the relevant Assembly subject Committee, which led to the conclusion that the Assembly needed further powers to enable it to play a more effective strategic role in transport in Wales. Opposition Members should recognise the fact that the Assembly, as a democratic institution, has an open process for debating and developing policy, as does the Welsh Assembly Government. The requirement for a two-thirds majority before an Order in Council could be introduced is wholly disproportionate.
	Amendments Nos. 187 and 212 address an important issue that has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). On Second Reading and on several other occasions, he raised the issue of pre-legislative scrutiny and how it will be carried out. I recognise the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny in the proposal for Orders in Council. Several interventions have been made on that point and I am grateful for the many suggestions that have been made as to how that process could be conducted, including the proposals in amendment No. 187.
	I should say immediately that I do not think that it is right that the Government should prescribe in the Bill how such scrutiny must be conducted, but that is what amendment No. 187 suggests. That would not allow parliamentarians the proper discretion to determine the most appropriate arrangements. However, in my letter to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) of 17 January, which was circulated and placed in the Library, and which covered the illustrative examples of Orders in Council, I outlined the normal procedure that I envisaged for scrutiny of such proposals. It may be helpful if I run through them again for the benefit of the Committee.
	When the Assembly has a proposal, it will discuss it with the UK Government. If broad agreement were reached, the Assembly would produce a proposed draft Order in Council—this is the difference between what is set out in amendment No. 187 and what I propose in my letter. The proposed draft Order in Council would be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, as is shown in the examples attached to the letter. It is worth pointing out that the proposed draft Order in Council could be amended, which would mean that more weight would be given to pre-legislative scrutiny than would be the case if the process of scrutiny did not allow amendments to be made, which I understand is what is set out in amendment No. 187.

Dominic Grieve: Who would be doing the amending, and in what setting?

Nick Ainger: Let me continue to go through the process.
	The Secretary of State would forward the proposed Order in Council to the appropriate parliamentary body—for example, the Welsh Affairs Committee—in the same way as is the case when draft Bills receive pre-legislative scrutiny. It would be open for any other Select Committee to scrutinise the proposal. When draft Bills receive pre-legislative scrutiny, the Wales Office announces that the public may give their views and, if they wish, contact their Member of Parliament, who may wish to contribute to the process. Pre-legislative scrutiny would thus not be restricted to Members of the House because members of the public could contribute their views.
	The practice of joint scrutiny between the Welsh Affairs Committee and Assembly Committees has worked well in the past. Depending on the type of Order in Council, the Welsh Affairs Committee could choose to continue with that arrangement, or decide to examine the proposal separately. That would be a matter for the Committee, but such a process would assist in gathering the widest possible input into the consideration of the proposal.
	I did not mention this in my letter, but as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, reports of the Welsh Affairs Committee have regularly been debated in the Welsh Grand Committee. I have noted the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen about that. We would encourage such debates on proposed Orders in Council. If it were felt that such a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee would help the process, we certainly would not put any obstacles in the way of that. I also agree that it is important that all hon. Members have the opportunity to comment on a proposed draft Order in Council, to ask questions about its scope and to propose ways in which amendments could be made.

Roger Williams: Has the Minister made any assessment of how many Orders in Council might have been brought forward in any specific year, such as during the previous year? We must consider not only Wales-only legislation, but the Welsh elements of England and Wales Bills. The Childcare Bill is going through the House at the moment. Would that require a separate Order in Council? If so, how many times would the Welsh Grand   Committee need to meet to consider all the Orders in Council?

Nick Ainger: It is difficult to give a totally accurate prediction of how many Orders in Council will come through. Orders in Council would not be required for primary legislation because the arrangements under which primary legislation gives secondary legislative powers to the Assembly would continue. It would be for Parliament to decide whether it was happy for such powers to be passed on, as is the case at the moment. I do not envisage that the number of proposals for Assembly Measures would be much greater than the number of requests for primary legislation that come through at present. However, the First Minister said that he would be surprised if there were more than five or six a year. I hope that that is helpful.
	On the scrutiny and involvement of all hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen asked whether it was possible for those who are not members of the Welsh Grand Committee to attend its debates. Again, we cannot dictate to the House what should happen. That is for the House to decide under its Standing Orders. However, I am sure that if a good case were made for an amendment to the Standing Orders—perhaps to consider a particular Order in Council or Orders in Council in general—the House could change its Standing Orders to widen the membership.

Alan Williams: Would the Minister support such an application?

Nick Ainger: I would have no problem with that. In addition, there is nothing to prevent a report by the Welsh Affairs Committee on a particular Order in Council from being debated in Westminster Hall. Again, hon. Members could make a contribution in that way, which would be open to everyone. That is an alternative to the Welsh Grand Committee.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked how Orders in Council would be amended. Once pre-legislative scrutiny is complete, reports will have been produced by the Welsh Affairs Committee. The Welsh Assembly might also have produced a report, and there may well be minutes of the Welsh Affairs Committee or, perhaps, the debate in Westminster Hall. Those will be taken into account, along with changes or problems highlighted in the pre-legislative scrutiny. Once that has been put together, the Secretary of State will liaise with the Welsh Assembly Government to produce a finalised draft Order in Council. Then, and only then, would the Secretary of State lay the draft Order in Council in an unamendable form for the 90-minute debates in both Houses of Parliament, inviting their approval. I would expect those debates to take place on the Floor of the House, certainly in the early days of the process. That process follows the successful model, developed over a number of years, for the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, which has helped to improve those Bills and ease their passage through the House. It represents a good model to apply to the Orders in Council.
	The Government welcome and encourage pre-legislative scrutiny of proposals for enhanced legislative competence. At the same time, there should be flexibility in the system. I would not wish either the Welsh Affairs Committee or the Welsh Grand Committee to have their business dictated by statute, which is the implication of amendments Nos. 187 and 212.
	Amendment No. 187 would also set fixed time scales for the draft Orders in Council. I am not talking about proposed draft Orders in Council; it clearly refers to draft Orders in Council that have been finalised by the Assembly after pre-legislative scrutiny. The amendment would require those to be laid before Parliament for 60 days—the so-called super-affirmative procedure. As I said, there will have been ample opportunity for hon. Members to have taken part in the pre-legislative scrutiny, so there is no need for a fixed period.
	The hon. Gentleman did not put much emphasis on draft Measures that are attached to the draft Order in Council. I remind Members that, by their nature, the Orders in Council do not change the substance of the law. Substantive changes of law would be made by the Assembly Measures themselves. Assembly Measures will be subject to detailed scrutiny by the Assembly. That is what we term the enhanced legislative process, which part 3 is all about.

Dominic Grieve: I suspect that I may not have spent as much time on this as I should have, in the hope that we would make some progress after yesterday's quite slow progress. There is an important issue, because it is far from clear—the Minister will appreciate this—to what extent the Order in Council will give an indication to Members of this House of what in reality will be in the Measure. I appreciate that there is a difficulty. The Measure has to be fleshed out by the Assembly and that cannot be done here, but how will reassurance be provided to Members of this House that they are not writing a blank cheque?

Nick Ainger: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham gave the hon. Gentleman a copy of my letter of 17 January and the attachments thereto, but there will be a clear indication in the attached memorandums of what such Measures will cover, the reasons behind them, the policy development and so on. I am pretty certain that pre-legislative scrutiny will be able to tease out any other issues that may not have been fully explained in the explanatory memorandum. I am also pretty certain that the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee or any other Committee of this House would be able to establish whether they were getting a pig in a poke. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured on that point.
	Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 181, 53 and 54 relate to the role of the Secretary of State. Much has been made of the fact that the Secretary of State has discretion whether to lay a draft legislative competence order—or an Order in Council—before both Houses, but that position is perfectly reasonable and rational. As I explained earlier, these proposals will not come out of the blue. Normally, the preliminary draft Orders in Council and the explanatory material that will accompany the draft would reflect the outcome of discussions between the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government, so that issues of scope, clarity and vires would have been thoroughly thought through before even the preliminary draft was laid before Parliament for pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The Secretary of State should be cast not in the role of Napoleon, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) implied, but genuinely as an honest broker. It would in any event be unreasonable to force the Secretary of State to lay before the House a draft order that he or she felt was defective, unworkable or premature. The provisions will ensure not only that the proposals that are put before Parliament are properly prepared but that the Government's view on them is clear.
	In new clause 4, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) proposes that the Assembly or Counsel General should be able to refer to the Supreme Court any decision by the Secretary of State to refuse to lay a draft Order in Council before each House of Parliament, so that the Supreme Court could decide whether such a decision was reasonable and intra vires. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to give notice of his reasons for refusing to lay the draft Order in Council. That, in itself, is a powerful incentive to any Secretary of State to ensure that he or she has good reasons for any refusal to lay such a draft. The Assembly and the public at large would know the Secretary of State's reasons for refusing.

Elfyn Llwyd: I hear what the Under-Secretary says, but the only reference in the White Paper to the Secretary of State's duty to provide reasons is a statement that the reasons he gives should not be trivial. That does not take us very far. Can the Under-Secretary provide examples of why the Secretary of State should refuse to lay a draft Order in Council?

Nick Ainger: Pre-legislative scrutiny might have failed to tease out an issue relating to whether the Measure fits correctly within one of the fields. The Secretary of State would therefore query whether the proposal is workable and firmly grounded. In such a case, he would say, "There is something wrong with this proposal—I cannot support it. The Assembly should consider the matter again." That is the type of case that we have in mind. Understandably, some have argued that the Secretary of State might block an Order in Council for purely political reasons—because he did not like the contents of the Measure—but we do not expect the process to work in that way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that answer.

David Davies: I appreciate that the Minister is attempting to reassure us that the Secretary of State would never turn down an application for political reasons, but although that might be the present intention, the Bill as drafted allows the Secretary of State for Wales, now or in future, to turn down a Measure for political reasons, if he or she wishes to. I cast no aspersions on the present Secretary of State when I say that, although that might be the present intention, if the wording of the Bill is not amended, it might not necessarily be what happens in future.

Nick Ainger: The political reality is that if the Secretary of State's reasons were weak or unconvincing, he would come under considerable public pressure. In addition, the Bill provides powers for the Counsel General to refer questions to the Supreme Court—for example, whether a matter relates to a field listed in part 1 of schedule 5. However, careful thought must be given to when those powers are required. In general, we have provided such powers where the question is clearly one of legal interpretation and requires a decision of the senior judiciary, given the constitutional significance of the matter in question. In such a case, judicial review is available to anyone who thinks that the Secretary of State's decision is unreasonable. An additional power for the Assembly or the Counsel General to refer the Secretary of State's decision to the Supreme Court is not necessary. Furthermore, the Secretary of State's decision is an Executive decision and is therefore qualitatively different from matters in respect of which the Bill provides a power for the Counsel General and the Attorney-General to refer questions to the Supreme Court.
	I have taken some time to respond to an important debate, which started last night. I hope that what I have said persuades Opposition Members that our proposal is reasonable and that we expect to have rigorous and effective pre-legislative scrutiny. I urge the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to withdraw the amendment.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has presented the Government's case, both yesterday and today.
	I said at the outset that amendment No. 180 was probing in nature. It was designed to highlight the difference of approach in the part 4 and part 3 procedures. The Minister is right, and I accept that if the amendment were to be accepted, it would have a sclerotic effect on the way in which the Assembly functions. Although I may have serious reservations about the operation of part 3 in principle, as the Minister no doubt realises, it is not my purpose to scupper it by making it ineffective if Parliament decides it wants part 3 in place. For those reasons, I shall not press amendment No. 180 to a Division.
	I hope that in due course it will be possible to press amendment No. 187. I continue to have serious reservations about the scrutiny procedure. I am grateful to the Minister for the letter that he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 17 January and the two memorandums attached to it, which I had an opportunity to read before they were put in the Library. They make interesting reading. I can see how the Government seek to involve the House and the Welsh Grand Committee in the formulation of policy in Wales and in taking a decision whether the Welsh Assembly should be allowed to pass an Assembly Measure.
	However, as I am sure the Minister recognises, the word "amendable" in the context of what goes on in this House usually suggests that it is possible to table an amendment and carry it by some vote or other or with the agreement of all concerned, so that the text can be varied. That, of course, is not possible under the proposed procedure, which envisages a consultation mechanism by which a draft order can be scrutinised. If individuals in the House or elsewhere—the various public bodies that the Government intend to consult—succeed in raising sufficient objection to make the Government consider that there may be a mistake in the drafting of the scope of the order, or that they may have difficulty getting the order in its present form through the House, they can redraft it and present a new order. That, as I am sure the Minister acknowledges, is not the same as an amendable order. It is an entirely different creature.
	In those circumstances, the House faces a possible difficulty. I shall not revisit the debate that we had yesterday on my first amendment, No. 161. That suggested to the Government that one possible way of proceeding was to hold a further vote after the Assembly Measure was drawn up and before it was submitted to Her Majesty in Council for ratification. In terms of the House having scrutiny of what is passed in Wales, that to my mind remains a better mechanism, but if that is not to be the course of action, we need to set out formally a procedure that will allow the House to undertake pre-scrutiny.
	The Minister worried me a little in the course of his comments, because he made it clear, rightly, that the system could be short-circuited. We will be relying on the Standing Orders of the House. No formal mechanism will be prescribed. That is not adequate. The Government need to consider what mechanism they want for the proper scrutiny process to take place. If amendment No. 187 is not a suitable vehicle for that, I look forward to a Government alternative being tabled on Report.
	As we are dealing with a novel area—I cannot think of previous legislation of this kind—I am not persuaded that the existing informal systems, which are enshrined only in convention and Standing Orders, are adequate. If the House is to have a proper role in deciding whether the Welsh Assembly should legislate, there is no reason why the scrutiny procedure should not be laid down in primary legislation. For those reasons, I seek to put amendment No. 187 to the vote. Even if it is not carried, it may be an inducement to the Government to consider the matter further. Subject to that, I seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 180, and to press amendment No. 187 to the vote.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 187, in page 51, line 29, at end insert—
	'(5A) Any draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under this section must be accompanied by—
	(a) a detailed memorandum setting out the scope of the proposal, its practical effects on Wales and the legislative authority that would pass to the National Assembly, and
	(b) a draft of the proposed Assembly Measure.
	(5B) Before an Order in Council is subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make a motion to refer the draft of the Order in Council, along with the draft Assembly Measure, to the Welsh Grand Committee for consideration.
	(5C) A report of the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the draft Order in Council and Assembly Measure must have been available to both Houses of Parliament for a period of not less than 60 days before any Order in Council is made under this section.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 328.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No. 123, in page 51, line 39, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 1 on page 52.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 206, Noes 275.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 62.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 95
	 — 
	Scrutiny of proposed Orders in Council by Supreme Court

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in clause 95, page 52, line 11, after 'Counsel General', insert 'or the Assembly'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 98, page 53, line 44, after 'Counsel-General', insert 'or the Assembly'.
	No. 41, in schedule 9, page 136, line 33, at end insert 'or the Assembly'.
	No. 42, in schedule 9, page 140, line 14, after 'Counsel-General', insert 'or the Assembly'.

Hywel Williams: The amendments would enable not just the Counsel-General and the Attorney-General but the Assembly itself to appeal to the Supreme Court on disputes about whether the Assembly has acted within its powers. It seems entirely reasonable for the elected Assembly to have that power, and unreasonable that it should not. The Bill proposes a separation of the Assembly from the Government, which is very welcome, of course. But the two are being treated differently, with the elected body coming off worse.
	The Counsel-General, as I understand it, is deemed to be a Minister. While the power of referral to the Supreme Court is appropriate as a ministerial power, why is it not so for the elected body? However much the Assembly might wish to do so, as things are it cannot appeal to the Supreme Court. In certain circumstances, it might be appropriate to confer on an elected body, because of its standing as an elected body, powers that it would be inappropriate to confer on an individual appointed Minister. However, in spite of that excellent principle, the elected body is coming off worse here. Furthermore, what recourse would there be for the Assembly if the Counsel-General refused to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for reasons that the Assembly might not accept? What recourse would there be for the Assembly and the Counsel-General if the Attorney-General refused to refer a matter to the Supreme Court for reasons that they might not accept?
	We can speculate about disagreements on referral to the Supreme Court between the Counsel-General and the Attorney-General, but that probably goes beyond the scope of the amendment. Given the Assembly's status as the elected body and as something separate from the Executive, and given those potential problems, we think that there is reason for the Assembly to have direct recourse to the Supreme Court.

Dominic Grieve: I am not minded to support the amendment, but it raises a pertinent issue. It might be helpful if the Minister took the opportunity to explain the nature of the relationship that will exist between the Counsel-General and the Assembly. There is some lack of clarity in the Bill's text about whether the Counsel-General is the servant of the Executive and the Ministers or of the Assembly, or of both.
	Of course, in this House, the Attorney-General fulfils a function both as the Government's adviser and, in theory, an adviser to the House, although because he is not a Member of the House, it is difficult for him to discharge that responsibility. I have not seen the Solicitor-General fulfil that function since he was appointed. It is an issue on which there needs to be some clarity.
	On the face of it, I can see why the Government have restricted the right to make a reference to the Counsel-General or the Attorney-General, but it raises the question of what the Counsel-General's duties will be and how he should discharge them. I assume that by virtue of his office he has to cast a wholly impartial eye over legislation and, if he thinks that there is an issue of controversy or difficulty, to make the reference. However, that raises a question about the extent to which he should be seen to act and will act independently and the extent to which he will be seen as a creature of the Executive.
	The standard problem that could arise, I suppose, is an issue on which there is disagreement between the Assembly and Ministers. We should like some reassurance from the Government as to how they see this working in practice.

John Gummer: Could we have a clear explanation of this, for another reason? I am rather minded to support the amendment, which seems merely to point out the nonsense of so much of the interior tergiversations that are going on in this clause. The thing that concerns me is the role of the Counsel-General. If he can be shown to be an independent figure able to take a proper legal view of what the Assembly wants, there may be an argument for saying that the Assembly, separate from the Counsel-General, should not have an application to the Supreme Court. The Minister must convince us that the Counsel-General will not be a creature of the Government but a proper servant of the Assembly. If he can so convince us, it would be perfectly proper to leave the Counsel-General that access, because of his legal position, but the Minister would have to be significantly more convincing than either the explanatory notes or what we have heard so far from him. I hope that he will help me.

Nick Ainger: Clause 95 gives a specific power to the Counsel-General and the Attorney-General to make a reference to the Supreme Court, where they would like a decision on whether a particular matter specified in a proposed Order in Council actually relates to a field listed in part 1 of schedule 5.
	We think that this should be a power for the Counsel-General or Attorney-General to exercise, because it is all about legal interpretation. Does the matter, as described in the proposed Order in Council, actually relate to a field as set out in part 1 of schedule 5? In most cases, it should be clear whether a matter relates to a specified field or not, so in most cases it will not be necessary to use this power. However, in the less clear-cut cases, the Counsel-General or Attorney-General will need to make a judgment as to whether a decision is required from the Supreme Court so that there is clarity on whether a matter is relevant or not.
	On a technical point, the Assembly will be an unincorporated association of 60 members. As such the Assembly itself could not institute proceedings in court, but it is possible that the Assembly Commission could act on its behalf. However, that is just a technical point. On the principle that I think the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is proposing, I still believe that it is inappropriate and unnecessary for a legal representative of the Assembly, as a legislature, to have such a role. The Counsel-General would be acting to represent Welsh devolution interests in proceedings involving devolution issues. It would seem odd to have two people able to carry out this role.
	The position of Counsel-General means that there is someone with status similar to that of Attorney-General—this touches on the points that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made—to represent devolution interests in proceedings. Opposition Members should welcome the fact that the Bill creates a post that can represent Welsh devolution interests in proceedings. But the provisions in the Bill correspond with provisions made with respect to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	The Counsel-General's appointment will have to meet with the approval of the Assembly, which should also enable the Assembly to signal that it has confidence in that person's ability to represent Welsh interests.

John Gummer: Would the Counsel-General be required to give advice to the Assembly? In other words, if the Assembly were to say to the Counsel-General, "We think this is a matter you ought to look at," will he be required to give the reasons for his decision not to refer it to the Supreme Court or would he be like the Attorney-General, who never gives the reasons for his advice?

Nick Ainger: I assume, bearing it in mind that the Counsel-General is a member of the Welsh Assembly Government, that when he is approached—we are talking about whether an Order in Council fits in with part 1 of schedule 5—he will be open in giving his opinion as to whether he thought that it did or did not fit in.
	I hope that I have answered the point that the hon. Member raised in his amendment. I hope that I have been able to reassure him that the amendments are not necessary, that the Counsel-General will be able to ensure that advice is given to the Assembly and that if there is a question as to whether the issue relates to part 1 of schedule 5, he will refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

Dominic Grieve: The Counsel-General may be a Member of the Assembly, but then again he may not. The option is open. We know from clause 49 that his appointment has to be ratified by the Assembly, but it is not clear how the Assembly would apply pressure, for instance, for his removal. Indeed, this applies to all the Welsh Ministers. I do not know whether it would be possible for the Welsh Assembly to move a motion for someone's salary to be reduced or, indeed, extinguished, which is the way we in this House normally go around these things if we wish to register our displeasure with a Minister's conduct.
	There are some issues of procedure. I accept that, ultimately, if the First Minister stands by a Counsel-General who is not performing adequately, that will lead to a crisis in which the Executive might be overturned by the Assembly. Nevertheless, that is a bit of a nuclear button option. In this House, we have other ways of showing clearly that someone has lost our confidence.

David Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dominic Grieve: No, I cannot. I was intervening on the Minister.

Nick Ainger: It was a long intervention, but not that long. I think that it was an intervention rather than a speech. Perhaps I should have been urging the hon. Gentleman to give way.
	Mr. Benton, I do not wish to go out of order. Strictly speaking, we are starting to discuss the issues set out in clause 49. The Assembly would have the power to vote for a reduction in salary. As clause 49 makes clear, proceedings are laid out in the Bill that would have to be followed either to appoint or to remove the Counsel-General.
	I think that I have responded to the points raised adequately. I am conscious that we need to make progress, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that response. We welcome the creation of the post and, given his reassurance to me and to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the Counsel-General's role in advising the Assembly as well as the Government—notwithstanding that he is counted as a Minister—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Mundell: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 52, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
	This is a probing amendment. I accept, before the Minister tells me, that "must" would be overly prescriptive, but the explanatory notes are, unfortunately, simply a replication of the clause and it would therefore be helpful if the Minister set out the criteria that would define "may" as it currently appears in the clause.

Nick Ainger: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that this is a probing amendment, because if accepted it would mean that every Order in Council would have to be referred to the Supreme Court. Clearly, he does not propose that. Occasionally, it will be necessary to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court and the Bill provides for that. That is why the clause contains the word "may" and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

David Mundell: I am disappointed that we did not get an example, or a definition of the criteria that would cause the process to be used. On other occasions on which the provisions in the Bill have not been entirely clear, the Minister has helpfully set out examples. Given where we are in our proceedings, I shall not press the matter further, but it would be helpful if the Minister could identify more fully the circumstances in which the process would be used. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96
	 — 
	Introduction of proposed Assembly Measures

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 52, line 21, at end insert
	', or
	(c)   by any committee of the Assembly established under section 28 or section 30.'.
	Clause 96(1)(a) and (b) provide that an Assembly Measure may be introduced to the Assembly
	"by the First Minister, any . . . Minister . . . any Deputy . . . Minister or the Counsel General, or . . . by any other Assembly member."
	The amendment would add to that list any Committee of the Assembly. It is a probing amendment, but I hope that the Minister will respond to a couple of points.
	Committees fulfil an important function in the Assembly. They are potentially a resource of great expertise and, in fulfilling their scrutiny function, they will be familiar with the detail of issues and in a good position to be innovative in their thinking. Any Measure proposed by a Committee would still be subject to all the scrutiny procedures that would apply to Measures proposed by Ministers or Back Benchers, but such a Measure would have all the advantages of having been scrutinised in detail beforehand by Members from all parties who would have reached a consensus. The Measure would be all the better for it. I hardly need remind the Committee that cross-party consensus is a prized commodity when promoting legislation. If, for some reason, a consensus had not been reached, the Assembly and, I dare say, this place and the other place could draw their own conclusions when giving the Measure further consideration.
	It may be argued that the role of Committees is to hold the Government to account, but it is also their role to contribute to policy development. Committees will need to be reactive to the Government's legislative priorities, but it has been said that it is necessary
	"to strike a proper balance between doing things that are the Government's agenda and setting your own agenda."
	That quotation comes from evidence given to the National Assembly's Committee on the Better Governance of Wales White Paper—its report was published in September last year—by the Clerk to the House of Commons. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is an excellent recommendation.
	As Professor McAllister said, also in that report, we should see
	"policy development and scrutiny as part of the same linear equation".
	Hon. Members' grasp of algebra might be as variable as mine, but her point is clear. This amendment is based on solid experience. There have been several Scottish examples of Committees being successful in generating legislation, as was shown in the report. That was also the case in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the past. The process works and has proven useful. That is one reason why the National Assembly Committee recommended that Committees should be able to propose Measures. We endorse that view and invite other hon. Members to support us.

David Davies: I offer my support for the amendment. It would appear to be anomalous that Assembly Committees cannot bring forward Measures. However, I wish to add a word of warning. In my experience of six years in the Welsh Assembly and my more limited experience in the House of Commons, I have noticed that the Committee system here works far better. I am not certain what the problem is, but it is probably to do with the number of Assembly Members and the fact that everyone knows everyone else so well. Also, most of the Committees are chaired by members of the governing party. Whatever the reason, the culture in this place is that Committees act independently and impartially and that, to some extent, people leave behind their political allegiances. That is certainly not the case in Assembly Committees, and I would therefore be cautious about suggestions that they function as well and as impartially as Committees in this place.

Hywel Williams: They might do so some day.

David Davies: My hon. Friend—if I may call him that—says that they may do so in the future, and I suggest that we wait and see. At the moment, the Assembly Committees are not as impartial and too many of their members are in the thrall of the party Whips.

Nick Ainger: It may assist Opposition Members if I say that I agree that it may in some circumstances be appropriate for an Assembly Committee to propose an Assembly Measure. For that reason, the Bill does not prevent Committees from doing so. Clause 96 ensures that Ministers and individual Members have the right to propose Measures, subject to the provision of standing orders. However, there is nothing to prevent standing orders from providing that Committees may also propose Measures. It is appropriate for the Assembly's Standing Orders to make any provision relating to the proposal of Measures that is additional to the minimum provision in clause 96. The amendment is not therefore necessary and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Hywel Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97
	 — 
	Proceedings on proposed Assembly Measures

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 53, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 172, in page 53, line 11, at end insert 'and'.
	No. 173, in page 53, line 13, leave out 'and'.
	No. 171, in page 53, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 174, in page 53, line 22, leave out from 'Welsh' to end of line 24.

Dominic Grieve: Clause 97 will regulate proceedings on proposed Assembly Measures. Subsection (1) provides that there should be a threefold procedure in the Assembly: a vote on general principles, an opportunity for the Assembly to consider Assembly Measures in detail—I take that to be a Committee or Report stage, adapted, obviously, due to the number of Members of the Assembly—and a final stage at which a proposed Assembly Measure can be passed or rejected. However, I am worried about subsection (2), which states:
	"Subsection (1) does not prevent the standing orders making provision to enable the Assembly to expedite proceedings in relation to a particular proposed Assembly Measure."
	There is a meeting of minds to the extent that part 3 of the Bill is not the same as part 4. Part 4 would, after a referendum, give the Assembly the legislative power to get on with it, for better or worse, but part 3 allows the Assembly to undertake detailed scrutiny of legislation in a procedure under which we retain, by virtue of the Order in Council, overall responsibility for the process. If that is indeed what we are doing, I have considerable anxiety about whether subsection (2) is appropriate because it provides a mechanism whereby the Assembly, having been given power by the Order in Council that we had enacted, could enact the Assembly Measure without giving it the consideration that is the very justification for granting the power in the first place.
	The situation is quite different from that under part 4. I have tabled an amendment that is similar to amendment No. 170 to part 4, but that is a probing amendment because my attitude to part 4 is rather different. I understand that, if we are transferring legislative functions to an independent body, it is not for us to start telling it how to carry out its business. However, the Government are announcing to the people of Wales that part 3 offers a hybrid procedure under which the House retains control, but detailed scrutiny is carried out by the Assembly so that the minutiae can be thrashed out in a way that provides better legislation for the Welsh people. It is thus astonishing that subsection (2) provides a loophole under which the Assembly could decide not to carry out adequate scrutiny.

John Gummer: Can my hon. Friend imagine a circumstance in which the House decided that it was suitable for the Welsh Assembly to consider a matter, yet the Assembly thought that the importance of the matter was such that it had to rush the process through? I think that those two things are utterly contradictory.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my right hon. Friend and cannot imagine such a circumstance. The process under part 3 that must be followed to get the Order in Council, including the delay periods, shows that Assembly Measures are hardly the material of urgent business, so it is difficult to understand why subsection (2) is needed at all.
	I hope that the Minister will accept that I say sincerely that subsection (2) is an invitation to possible conflict. Someone could decide to short-circuit the process, and the difficulty would be that the poor old Secretary of State would have to decide whether to apply his veto because hon. Members would make representations to suggest that the whole matter had not been considered by the Welsh Assembly and that full scrutiny had thus not been carried out.
	I look forward to hearing the explanation for subsection (2) from the Minister. There is justification for including such a provision in part 4, if it is ever to be implemented, but I do not understand the justification for including it in part 3. If I understand the Government's position correctly—let me leave aside the question of whether I agree with the principle of the process—they are offering the reassurance that the people of Wales will get better governance because the Welsh Assembly will have more time to flesh out the details of a principle that has been approved by the House. However, subsection (2) is a mechanism by which the Government say that if the Welsh Assembly wishes to circumvent that principle, it may do so.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response because unless it is adequate, we might well wish to pursue this important matter on Report, if not now. However, I do not want to provoke a conflict at this stage because even though I am not wildly happy with part 3 of the Bill, I want to improve it.
	Amendments Nos. 171 to 173 are probing amendments that relate largely to the same point: the Standing Orders for private proposed Assembly Measures. The House has different procedures and Standing Orders for its consideration of private measures, so I understand that the Welsh Assembly would need different procedures, too. However, private proposed Assembly Measures would still need to be considered fully. We must not have a situation in which that process can be short-circuited. Although I accept that there must be a mechanism for a separate system, the amendments reinforce the point that I am making about subsection (2).

Elfyn Llwyd: I support amendment No. 174. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is on to a good point. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which an Assembly Measure should not be produced bilingually. It would be frankly unreasonable to expect all the paperwork generated by the Assembly to be bilingual, but an Assembly Measure, which will be akin to a parliamentary Bill, should be published in both languages. I fully support the hon. Gentleman and add my voice to his call for an explanation of the circumstances that would justify such an exemption.

Dominic Grieve: I regret that I failed to speak to amendment No. 174, but the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to set out the precise explanation that I want from the Minister. Bilingualism appears to be absolutely embedded in the Assembly, so surely the idea of an Assembly Measure that is not bilingual is very odd indeed.

John Gummer: I owe a filial duty to my Welsh-speaking father to support amendment No. 174 and the need for bilingual provision. I have always held it against him that we did not learn Welsh in the household, and I am pleased that the Welsh language is now much more widely spoken. I support the general idea that the Welsh Assembly should be bilingual in its entirety, although I understand that complex legal tomes or scientific articles could be excluded. There should be no possibility of the two languages being thought of as anything other than equal.

David Davies: I am happy to agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, but sometimes things can go too far. For example, the emergency signs for lifts in the Welsh Assembly were written in English and Welsh and also set out in both English and Welsh Braille. I am given to understand that during the first six months that the Assembly was in place, the Welsh Braille sign was upside down, so the only way in which people would have been able to use it would have been if they had stood on their heads.

John Gummer: We can find the absurd in many such situations. It is the very nature of a law, although I do not know what to call it because one word that can be used is impolite in the House and the use of the phrase Murphy's law is now illegal because it is racist. Whatever the law is called, these things just happen.
	The matter is crucial. It is crucial the other way round, too, because it is also important that English-speaking Assembly Members are not put in a position in which an important document is not available in English. Wales has done remarkably well in returning to a choice of languages. The fact that a great language was not lost is a rare and encouraging example. It would be odd if the Committee decided not to do everything it could to encourage that further.

Nick Ainger: This has been an interesting and, hopefully, brief debate. Clause 97(2) enables the Assembly, in its Standing Orders, to provide for the circumstances in which a particular proposed Measure can come before the Assembly and be taken through a procedure that is different from that set out in clause 97(1). As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, there is an equivalent provision in clause 110(2), as regards Bills in the Assembly.
	I am sympathetic to the concern that we ensure that all Assembly Measures receive proper scrutiny, but clause 97(2) does not circumvent that. Instead, it recognises that there may be circumstances in which the Assembly's standard scrutiny procedures would not be appropriate because the Measure concerned deals with a matter that requires urgent attention. Animal health, such as foot and mouth, is an example of that. The circumstances would arise when the Assembly has already been given powers to legislate by this place. If a foot and mouth outbreak, or another animal health issue, required it to legislate quickly, clause 97(2) would allow it to truncate the process, as we have done on occasion.
	I imagine that the Assembly's standing orders set out the time between its equivalent of our Second Reading, Committee stage, and Report and Third Reading—the same stages as we go through. The standing orders could be amended to allow the scrutiny process to take place over one or two days. That is sensible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have included the provision for those purposes. It will be used on rare occasions, but it would be wrong for the standing orders not to set out proceedings in which the Assembly can address urgent issues.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the force of what the Minister says, but the difficulty is that the expression "Assembly Measure" will cover the enactment of what we consider to be statutory instruments and secondary legislation, and the enactment of a form of primary legislation, for which we have given permission. The two things have been rolled together, something that we touched on yesterday. In those circumstances, should we not at least make an attempt to bring back a distinction, because the two are rather different?

Nick Ainger: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there may well be a need for the Assembly to take advantage of the permission, given by this place, to legislate not just in secondary legislation but, in effect, through its Measures system. I would be surprised—it would be illogical and, possibly, irresponsible—if those standing orders did not allow for emergency legislation to be enacted by the Assembly.

Elfyn Llwyd: Given that the Minister is unable to give an example, apart from animal health, why not leave it to the Assembly to create its own standing orders? Why do we need to tell it what to do? The clause says "must include" so and so. It is prescriptive and tells the Assembly what to do. [Interruption.] On any reading, that is what it says.

Nick Ainger: Subsection (2) states:
	"Subsection (1) does not prevent the standing orders making provision to enable the Assembly to expedite proceedings in relation to a particular proposed Assembly Measure."
	We are not telling it how to do it; we are just giving it permission to change its standing orders, in whatever way it wants, so that it can expedite a Measure. We are not being prescriptive in that respect. We are allowing the Assembly, under its standing orders, to address the problem that I set out. We are putting in the Bill the provision for the Assembly to come up with its own solution, through its standing orders, to the need to introduce urgent legislation.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am talking about subsection (5), which is the subject of amendment No. 174. It states:
	"The standing orders must include provision for securing that the Assembly may only pass a proposed Assembly Measure if the text of the proposed Assembly Measure is in both English and Welsh"—

Nick Ainger: I am not there yet.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thought that the Minister had addressed that amendment. I will hold my fire.

Nick Ainger: For clarification, I was still addressing my remarks to amendment No. 170. I had not moved on to amendment No. 174.

Peter Bone: On subsection (2), the Minister said that the provision will be used rarely. Will he give a rough figure of how many times that might happen in a year?

Nick Ainger: I would imagine that it would not happen every year. It would be a rare occurrence, for something like a major animal health problem, such as an outbreak of foot and mouth. It is rare for us to truncate our scrutiny of a particular problem.
	Amendments Nos. 172, 173 and 171 relate to private Assembly Measures, and I recognise the comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. The provisions are similar to those that apply in this place to private and hybrid Bills, by which a special Committee is set up to take evidence. That is the thought behind them.
	On amendment No. 174, we would be amazed if the Assembly did not produce its Measures in both languages. We have a simple reason for resisting the amendment. The Assembly may, on occasion, want to introduce a Measure on public health, for example, which lists dozens of micro-organisms known only by their Latin names. Would hon. Members want us to convert those into English and Welsh? Let me give the assurance, however, that we would expect any Measure to be produced in English and Welsh.

Dominic Grieve: At the risk of being pernickety, the wording of subsection (5), and the use of the expression
	"the text need not be in both languages",
	does not cover the possibility of the text being in Latin, because it is not one of the two languages specified? In those circumstances, the Minister would have to amend the legislation to say that the text does not have to be in either language, but some other.

Nick Ainger: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman on that point is that both he and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) are seeking an assurance that the Measures would be published in both English and Welsh, as was the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and I can give that assurance.
	Bearing in mind what I have said previously and the assurances that I have given on amendment No. 174, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Dominic Grieve: Short debates can often be the most interesting. The Minister has persuaded me completely—indeed, I do not think that I needed much persuasion—on amendments Nos. 171, 172, and 173 about the proposed private Assembly Measures. Clearly, the Standing Orders of the Welsh Assembly will have to make provision for dealing with private business.
	The Minister has also persuaded me, so far as amendment No. 174 is concerned, that there are good reasons for not fettering the Assembly by requiring that it can produce texts only in English and Welsh. However, I recommend that he and his legal advisers look again at the provision, because I wonder whether it has the effect of requiring that texts can be in English or Welsh but nothing else. Perhaps I am wrong about that, and I should be greatly reassured if that were so, but my reading of the provision is that texts normally have to be in English and Welsh or in English or Welsh. That might create a problem if Latin terms are to be included.
	The Minister has only half persuaded me on amendment No. 170. This debate has highlighted the odd situation that we are creating: defining as an Assembly Measure that which in this House we would consider to be either primary legislation or statutory instruments. The Minister makes a persuasive case for urgency if the Assembly is enacting what we would normally call a statutory instrument. After all, we sometimes have to enact them urgently, and by their very nature a statutory instrument can in this House be passed rapidly. By virtue of the way in which the Welsh Assembly operates, however, statutory instruments are normally mulled over at considerably greater length, which was one argument for the original devolution proposals given to the Welsh.
	Of course, if urgency is required, something can always be enacted by a statutory instrument in this place. It is clear that it is unacceptable that there should be short-circuiting of the primary legislative functions which could be transferred under the Order in Council procedure, as I think the Minister has acknowledged, but, as the Bill stands, there is a risk that that is exactly what could happen, which would defeat the entire object of the exercise of going through and enacting part 3.
	Therefore, given the difficulty with the way in which we define Assembly Measures, I propose to consider the matter further, but I cannot rule out on Report our suggesting that some distinction must be drawn between different sorts of Assembly Measures. I urge the Government to consider that, because within the term "Assembly Measure" we are lumping together forms of legislation which in this House we treat very differently, both in their significance and in the way in which we proceed. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 98 and 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100
	 — 
	Power to intervene in certain cases

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 54, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 158, in page 54, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 126, in page 54, line 43, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 175, in page 54, line 44, after 'England', insert 'and Wales'.
	No. 176, in page 55, line 22, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
	'(8)   No order under this Section may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Elfyn Llwyd: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 125, 158 and 126, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
	The reason why the amendments have been tabled is very simple. The first amendment would deal with subsection (1)(a), which says:
	"if a proposed Assembly Measure contains provisions which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe—
	(a)   would have an adverse effect on any matter which is not specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5".
	That is terrifically broad to a point that it is almost nonsense. I hope that in responding the Minister will give us some detail, because in the hands of an unsympathetic Secretary of State it could be a tool to stamp on the Assembly and prevent it from proceeding in its normal democratic way. The notes on clauses are more obtuse than usual, so there is no help there. I press the Minister for as much detail as possible on that paragraph. I am sure that he will do his best to enlighten us in due course.
	Amendment No. 126 relates to paragraph (c), which effectively gives the Secretary of State the same veto. It refers to whether a Measure
	"would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies in England".
	Again, my objection is that that is nebulous. We would like to know more. In all the various reports and the notes on clauses that I have read, I have seen nothing of any great help. The provision is extremely broad and, again, an unsympathetic holder of the office could easily pray in aid such a power to prevent any legislation.
	By far the most concerning is paragraph (b), which is the subject of amendment No. 158. For the record, I shall read the paragraph. It also provides for a veto and would come into effect where any Measure might have
	"a serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England".
	I remember as a young boy going with my father to Tryweryn. I have the honour to represent that area now, and I shall deal briefly with the history of the drowning of the valley. I know some of the displaced people from the Tryweryn valley, and I know that never again will the people of Wales stand for such undemocratic, Mugabe-type dealings. Every single Member of Parliament from Wales was against the drowning of the valley, but it went ahead. I hope that we will never see such an event again, because I do not know what would happen, but this clause would enable it, and that is my concern.
	The provision has touched a raw nerve, not just among people such as myself who support Plaid Cymru but among others, because once more they can see potential for conflict. The paragraph clearly refers to water resources in England, and I can easily envisage that in some years from now somebody might consider that there is a need to drown another valley in Wales. As that would be such a large planning operation, it would come under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and then bypass the planning procedures in the Assembly. The Government could rely on that paragraph, among others, to ensure that the plan went ahead, whatever the view of the Welsh Assembly, which would be expressing the view of the Welsh people.
	We have experienced that once already. I know families who were displaced and who still live in the Bala area. Most of the elderly people have now passed away, but some remain; their wounds are still open and they still feel a great deal of hurt. Subsection (1)(b) therefore touches a very raw nerve.

Jennifer Willott: My reading of the clause is that it applies only to Measures proposed by the Assembly, so the paragraph refers to the Secretary of State's decision, not on legislation that is coming from Parliament to the Assembly, but on a Measure proposed by the Assembly that would have an effect on the water supply. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify?

Elfyn Llwyd: By all means. If the Assembly of its own volition, through one of its Measures, wished to signal that it opposed any such thing happening, the paragraph would enable the Secretary of State to overrule it. Now that the hon. Lady is taking an interest, perhaps she will tell me how she squares what she has just said with what the Liberal Democrat leader in Wales said. His response to the clause, which has been described as "bizarre" and "patronising", was:
	"We're not children. Does anyone seriously think that a future Welsh Government would turn off the taps to England? Or that we would poison the water in our reservoirs? If we are to be trusted with making our own laws, then surely we can be trusted not to damage the supply of water to homes in the neighbouring country. This clause is insulting, and we will be seeking to get it removed as the Bill goes through Parliament and the Assembly."
	I emphasise the last sentence. Is the hon. Lady disobeying her Welsh leader?

Jennifer Willott: I was actually asking a question, not stating a fact. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, but has merely quoted words back at me.

Elfyn Llwyd: While I am at it, I shall quote the Conservative leader in Wales. He said:
	"I find this clause odd. Things like this show the Secretary of State for Wales has the powers of a colonial governor and we are not being treated as grown-ups."
	Plaid Cymru's Assembly deputy leader said:
	"We don't want a Secretary of State telling us what we should do with our water. I thought the whole point of devolution was to transfer power from London to the democratically elected 60 Members of the National Assembly."
	If the hon. Lady's reading of paragraph (b) is correct, her colleagues in the National Assembly and hon. Members here—myself included—will take some comfort from that; but my ordinary reading of it suggests that it goes far broader than she has implied. It seems to me that a future Welsh Government could say, for whatever reason, that they were not willing to accept further valley drownings, and be overruled. My reading of the provision might not be correct, but that is my understanding.
	When the Government were asked to comment on the provision in Wales on Sunday, the Wales Office spokesman said only:
	"It is a fallback provision, and would only ever be used in extreme circumstances."
	That being so, may I ask the Minister what he means by "extreme circumstances"? If they include closing off the water supply or, worse still, fouling the water supply, does not the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 deal with them? We are owed a better explanation. I ask the Minister to give us examples of extreme circumstances and to tell the Committee that my reading of the clause is wrong and that it would not allow Parliament to override the democratic view of the National Assembly if it decided against another valley being drowned.

John Gummer: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has understated his case. The three amendments are most important. Paragraphs (a) and (c) in subsection (1) differ from paragraph (b) because paragraph (b) contains the word "serious". I find that peculiar, because it means that the provisions that are the least precise may be activated when the consequence or effect of the Measure is not serious, but merely adverse.
	It is extremely difficult to envisage how paragraphs (a) or (c) would be used. They can be used even in circumstances where the Minister would not have to show that the "adverse effect" was serious. Even the word "effect", used in paragraphs (a) and (c), is less powerful than "impact", which is used in paragraph (b); an effect is a passing matter. I imagine that the phrase "adverse effect" refers to a range of issues—the list of fields specified in part 1 of schedule 5 is considerable, encompassing a huge number of areas. Under the clause, a Secretary of State, by diktat, would be able to say that a Measure that has a passing or glancing effect on some matter of importance—sufficiently important for the Assembly to feel that a Measure is needed—should be stopped because he has "reasonable grounds to believe" that it would have an "adverse effect". It is difficult to imagine that a Secretary of State would not be able to stop anything that he did not like. The condition of having "reasonable grounds" does not help, so vague is the wording used in the following paragraphs.
	In my opinion, paragraphs (a) and (c) are entirely otiose. Their presence suggests that the Bill will not do what it is supposed to. I have all sorts of doubts about the processes set out in the Bill—they are far too opaque. However, if we are to proceed, we must not pretend that the Bill is a means of enhancing the powers of the Assembly, when, just in case the Assembly does something of which we do not approve, we have put in a few get-out clauses to keep power in the hands, not of Parliament, but of the Secretary of State. That is the second reason why I feel so strongly about this matter: I do not like Ministers having such powers without reference back to Parliament. Through the Bill, in effect, Parliament is delegating further legislative powers to the Assembly, but the Government are ensuring that Ministers will still have power, even though Parliament has delegated it. Both paragraphs (a) and (c) are unacceptable.
	On subsection (1)(b), I agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. Either we trust the Welsh people or we do not. It is extremely difficult for me to accept that the Welsh people have to be singled out and measures taken to ensure that, where water is concerned, they should not in any way or in any circumstances be able to do anything that might upset the plans of English Ministers.
	I have another reason to object. These days, when even some of our less educated newspapers are beginning to understand the importance of climate change, the issues relating to water have become more important, not less. I do not want to give the impression to the Welsh people—or to the English people—that if we are short of water, our first response will be to extend the resource, rather than to improve retention and reduce use. The clause is very old fashioned. It suggests that Wales is a provider of water for England. It does not say that England and Wales together must deal with the problems of the shortage of water, the effect of climate change, the need to restrain our use of water, and the like.
	The clause comes from a civil servant. Having been a Minister for 16 years, I know the sort of civil servant who would have drafted it.

Chris Ruane: Name him.

John Gummer: It is for the Government to name him or her. I suspect that somebody came out of the woodwork one day and said to the Minister, "Ah, Minister, better not." That is a very dangerous part of the civil servant's language. "Better not give the Welsh the possible power to do something about water. Better remind them that it's not their water. It is, in effect, our water and we're going to decide what is done with it. Better not, Minister. Let's keep the powers that really matter."
	That is offensive to Welsh people. One would not have said that about any other community in the United Kingdom, either historic communities or newly found communities. I invite the House to substitute the names of a range of newly found communities in the clause and see how well that goes down. The quality of the drafting is below even the low standard of the Bill.
	I suggest that we use the Civil Contingencies Act to cover the problem of a revolutionary party in the Assembly bent on stopping people having water. There is no need for the clause. It is an unnecessary attempt to remind the Welsh where they really are—under the control not of the House, but of Ministers. If I were living in Wales, I would find the clause unacceptable, as the leader of the Conservative party in Wales suggested, and I hope very much that it is removed.

David Mundell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) raised a number of interesting issues, which I look forward to hearing the Minister address. As I said in relation to an earlier amendment, the confusion derives from the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill and the lack of clarity about the meaning of nebulous phrases such as "adverse effect" and "serious adverse effect". It is incumbent on the Minister to define for us the difference between the two, and to explain the reason for two definitions in the same clause.
	As there is a conjoined English and Welsh jurisdiction, subsection (1)(c) should refer to that, and not just to the law in England, which does not exist as a jurisdiction. That is the purpose of amendment No. 175. If the Minister is able to satisfy the House as regards the terminology in subsection (1), we propose in amendment No. 176 an affirmative procedure for orders brought before the House.
	The Minister can hardly expect anything other than the reaction in the Chamber this evening to the clause, given that the definition is so nebulous and the potential impact of the clause is so serious. If the clause had been proposed as an amendment by the Opposition, the Minister and others would have called it a wrecking amendment tabled by people determined to ensure that the Bill and the procedures would not work. It is incumbent on the Minister to answer the questions that have been raised, and further questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) intends to raise.

David Jones: I am concerned about clause 100(1)(c). As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) observed, we occupy a conjoined jurisdiction of England and Wales, yet the clause provides that the Secretary of State can effectively put a stop to an Assembly Measure only if it has an adverse impact on the operation of the law as it applies in England. We have a large body of law that may well be affected by an Assembly Measure not only in England, but in Wales. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State has no power of intervention if an Assembly Measure has an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies in Wales also. The explanatory notes are silent on that point, so will the Minister expand on it?

Nick Ainger: The measures set out in subsection (1) replicate schedule 3, paragraph 6 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. There is nothing new in subsection (1). The provisions were discussed in this place and passed in 1998. That provides some context for the measure.

Elfyn Llwyd: Is the Minister saying that paragraph (b) about water resources was in the 1998 Act?

Nick Ainger: I am assured that that is the case. Perhaps that will lower the temperature of the debate so that we can address the detail.
	Clause 100 contains powers for the Secretary of State, by order, to prevent a proposed Assembly Measure from being submitted for approval by Her Majesty in Council. These powers are rightly constrained. The Secretary of State would be able to block a proposed measure only in certain prescribed circumstances. Moreover, the Secretary of State must have reasonable grounds to believe that those circumstances exist.
	Hon. Members asked about the difference between paragraph (a), which refers to adverse effects beyond the Assembly's legislative competence, and paragraph (b), which refers to
	"a serious adverse impact on water resources".
	An adverse effect on matters beyond the Assembly's legislative competence is an issue that we have already discussed. That could be addressed through the Counsel-General or the Attorney-General. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that the clause relates to Assembly Measures and their possible effect, not to a UK Department imposing some measure on Wales. There is a remote possibility that these circumstances may occur and as in the 1998 Act, we need to deal with that possibility.
	The clause refers to an adverse effect on matters outside the Assembly's legislative competence. If the process already exists whereby such an issue may be referred to the Supreme Court in the Order in Council process, the provision in the Bill would mean that if, after a Measure had been completed, a problem—possibly purely technical—emerged in relation to whether the Measure would have an impact in an area for which the Assembly did not have legislative competence, the Secretary of State could prevent it from going forward, or perhaps suggest to the Assembly that it look again at the Measure and amend it.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I take the Minister back to clause 100(1)(b), which deals with water resources? What would happen if the National Assembly wanted to pass a measure to outlaw any further drownings of valleys because it believed that water needed to be conserved and that a certain percentage of water was being wasted through leaking pipes every day of the year? Could the Secretary of State say, "No, we are not having that, because we might need compulsorily to acquire land to drown in the future." I believe that Parliament would prevail in those circumstances and that the voice of the Assembly would be drowned.

Nick Ainger: Let us examine the hypothetical case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, in which the Assembly said that there would be no increase in the amount of water available. As I read clause 100(1)(b), such a proposal would have a serious adverse impact on water resources, water supply or the quality of water in England. The proposal does not specify an increase; it describes the current situation and states that it should not be made any worse. Hon. Members were seeking an example of an Assembly Measure that would have such an impact, but I cannot think of one. However, there might be a measure affecting a major forestry issue, for example, that would have an impact on the water resources that are supplied to England. The provision might apply in that kind of area.
	I repeat that this does not involve something being done to Wales. It would involve an Assembly Measure that was being introduced. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to the drowning of valleys, but I just cannot see how that would relate to the circumstances to which these requirements refer.

John Gummer: I ask the Minister to look again at his explanation of clause 100(1)(b). It seems clear to me that the provision could be used by a Minister against an Assembly Measure that related to the increase of water resources. If England thought that there was a need for such an increase, any such Measure could have a serious adverse impact on water resources. The provision does not mention present or previous water resources; it simply mentions water resources. The Minister is giving that opportunity; he might want to. I think that we ought to know.

Nick Ainger: We are starting to get into the realms of fantasy now. This provision has been on the statute book since 1998, and there has never been a problem with it. I simply cannot accept some of the arguments that have been put forward. These are perfectly reasonable proposals that were originally set out in schedule 3(6) of the Government of Wales Act 1998.

David Jones: I note that the word "effect" is used in clause 100(1)(a) and (c), while the word "impact" is used in paragraph (b). Will the Minister please explain—[Interruption.] Clearly, an Act of Parliament uses words in a particular manner in order to convey a particular meaning; at least, one hopes that it does. Can the Minister explain why the word "impact" is used in paragraph (b), and the word "effect" in paragraphs (a) and (c)?

Nick Ainger: No, I cannot. We are trying to scrutinise a very large Bill, and I think that we are now moving into an area in which our proceedings might fall into disrepute. We really need to move on.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Ainger: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he is going to make a sensible intervention.

Lembit �pik: I only make sensible interventions. I have been listening very closely to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and to the Minister's response to them, and I must take issue with what the Minister has just said. As the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) has just pointed out, the wording of these provisions is very important, and it is our duty to get this right. If different terminology is used in paragraph (b) from that in paragraphs (a) and (c), one has to assume that there is some logic behind that. I know that this argument is taking a bit of time, but I hope that the Minister is about to receive some clarification on this, because for me at least, his answer will be salient to what we should do if there were a vote on the amendment.

Nick Ainger: This will really enlighten the Committee. The reason that the word effect is used is because it relates to the legislative environment. The reason that the word impact is used is because it relates to the physical environment. I hope that everyone is happy with that explanation.
	As I was saying, the intervention powers are extremely limited, but they are important. It is absolutely right that the Secretary of State should be able to prevent proposed Assembly legislation from having adverse consequences of the kind set out in clause 100(1). It is unlikely that that would be necessary, but it is important that that power should exist.
	Amendment No. 175 would give the Secretary of State the power to override proposed Assembly legislation just because he or she thought that it would have a bad effect. That would be completely unacceptable. We must strictly constrain the powers of the Secretary of State, and I would urge hon. Members not to support that amendment.
	Amendment No. 176 would provide that an order preventing an Assembly Measure from being submitted for approval by Her Majesty should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. I suspect that it has been tabled in this way because the previous amendment, amendment No. 175, is so powerful. The reason that we have proposed to use the negative procedure, which could be implemented by either House of Parliament, is that the Secretary of State must make an order within four weeks. It would not be possible to do that, or to be properly accountable, if we were to use the affirmative order procedure.
	In conclusion, the Conservative amendments and the Plaid Cymru amendments are poles apart, in that they seek to do completely opposite things. Any of them would unbalance devolution in one direction or another. The position that we have outlined in the Bill strikes a perfect balance, and I would therefore ask the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy not to press his amendment to a vote.

Elfyn Llwyd: Perhaps unsurprisingly, I am far from satisfied. The Minister has not assisted us very much on amendment No. 158. We have had a discussion, and he has said certain things about it, but I am still unclear. From my reading of paragraph (b), I still believe that, were the Assembly to decide to introduce a measure to prevent the creation of any more dams or the drowning of any more valleys in Wales for any purpose, Parliament could lawfully override that measure via the Secretary of State. That is quite plain, because the provision does not use words such as current or historical. It does not relate to the here and now; it is for the future. Let us be straight about this; all legislation is about the present and the future, not the present alone. We do not legislate for tomorrow alone; we legislate for 10 years from tomorrow, and for 20 and 30 years from tomorrow if the Bill is reasonable.
	Unfortunately, I am dissatisfied. I know that time is short for our debate generally, but I wish to put amendment No. 158 to the vote.

Michael Lord: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw amendment No. 125?

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 158, in clause 100, page 54, line 41, leave out paragraph 9(b).[Mr. Llwyd.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clauses 100 and 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102
	  
	Referendum about commencement of Assembly Act provisions

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in clause 102, page 56, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 184, in clause 102, page 56, line 24, leave out
	'that does not prevent the making of'.
	No. 185, in clause 102, page 56, line 25, at end insert
	'may not be made in advance of two further Assembly general elections.'.

Cheryl Gillan: We move on to part 4 of the Bill. In the spirit of the welcome that I accord to this section of the Bill, we thoroughly approve of the provision for a referendum. As we have argued previously, we believe in asking the people of Wales for their views. Although the provision comes late in relation to the legislative devices encompassed in the Bill, certainly in part 3, we would not be so curmudgeonly as to fail to welcome the referendum should the Assembly receive full law-making powers.
	I want to express an element of scepticism, however, on behalf of many who read that the Secretary of State does not envisage the provision being enacted before 2011which, I understand, he has said on many occasionsand who believe that offering a referendum in such circumstances is merely a diversionary tactic. Certainly, by ostensibly offering a referendum in the Bill, the Secretary of State can point out that the Bill contains a provision that arranges to consult the people of Wales on a future occasion. In truth, however, it is so far into the future that it seems strange that we should be discussing it now. Therefore, while many continue to believe that the Secretary of Sate can achieve virtually full law-making powers through the convoluted Order in Council process contained in part 3, they remain to be convinced that the Secretary of State has any intention of ever holding this referendum.
	I am a pleasant person, however

Lembit �pik: Hear, hear.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I would like to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, and I will therefore assume that at some time in the future the provision will be put into operation. If it is put into operation, however, it would be inequitable to allow what is contained in the provisionsthe ability for referendums to be repeated over and over again. Certainly, I am not the only person who is worried about that phenomenon in relation to the way in which clause 102 is drafted.
	I am sure that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), whom I am delighted to see in his place, will want to make his contribution. As it happens, he tabled an amendment identical to mine, and I am slightly embarrassed that my amendment was selected first, as I would certainly have given way to the Father of the House if his amendment had been selected and he had wanted to move it. On Second Reading he made a great deal of sense, and he was particularly concerned that the Secretary of State had not even taken into account the First Minister's views, or, indeed, his own views, that a no vote would take the matter off the agenda for a long time.
	The Government only issued their response to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 18 January, but that Committee had also been concerned about the chances of a referendum being repeated over and over again following a no vote. I refer in particular to the Better Governance for Wales scrutiny by that Committee, and to paragraph 135. I am sure that the Secretary of State is pretty intimate with its wording, because he must have examined it carefully to respond to the conclusion. It is worth repeating:
	The Secretary of State confirmed that there would not be specific provision in the Bill to outlaw repeated referenda, as that would be a 'matter for politics'.
	There we have itthe consideration is not about the effect on the people of Wales, or the effect on the morale of people facing repeated referendums, but a matter for politics . The paragraph continued:
	Rhodri Morgan
	the First Minister
	believed that should a referendum fail 'everybody will have to take a deep breath and decide when they want to do this again' but was of the strong belief that a 'No' vote would put the issue 'off the agenda for a very long time', probably lasting a generation.
	That is not what the Bill allows for, however. Even Professors Miers and Rawlings, in giving evidence,
	suggested that there was a case for 'a moratorium on further referendum initiatives for a specified period, for example, two Assembly terms'. In that event, the effect of a 'No' vote would be 'simply that the Assembly carried on as it was'.
	I should have thought that that was the Secretary of State's exit route, and that the clause could have allowed for a referendum to be held, say, after two further Assembly terms, which might have been more reasonable and have found favour in the House and certainly in another place. However, the Government's response stated:
	The Government agrees that there should not be a cycle of essentially redundant or capricious referendumsnot least reflecting voter confidence and the significant cost involved. However, the Government does not consider that explicit provision is needed to bar repeated referendums. The provisions within the Bill to ensure consensus, i.e., approval of any referendum Order in Council by both Houses of Parliament and by a two thirds majority of all Assembly Members, together with the role of the Secretary of State, should prevent this.
	I beg to differ. Despite that response, I ask the Government to think again. If they are going to rely on the provisions that are retained in the Bill, if they believe that a no vote would put a referendum off for a long time, and if, as the Secretary of State confirmed, it should be a matter for politics, I ask him to practise good politics. He is capable of accepting the amendment and improving the Bill for and on behalf of the people of Wales.
	The Secretary of State said that this piece of legislation would settle the question of devolution in Wales for a generation. If the Government are allowing in the Bill the possibility for repeat referendums, how can the Bill be about settling the debate? It is quite the reverse. It is about prolonging the debate and achieving an end by a process of attrition. I am sure that that is not what he would want as a testimony to his stewardship of Wales: the prospect of a running sore in the history of devolution.
	This is not an ambitious amendment. It is not a monumental change that is being requested. It is a sensible measure that would rule out using the referendum process improperly. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the amendments and accept them in the spirit in which they were tabled.

Alan Williams: I share the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) at finding that our minds work alike and that we both tabled the same amendment. I hope that her colleagues will not hold that against her. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, when he first came to the Dispatch Box to announce what he had in mind, I welcomed the referendum, and he welcomed the fact that I supported what he said at that time. A week ago, I welcomed the referendum because I thought that a referendum meant that the people of Wales would make a choice. I did not realise that it was to be an ongoing saga until the people of Wales made the right choice, the choice that the Secretary of State wants and the only choice and decision that he is willing to accept. I have become disenchanted, to put it mildly.
	I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Wales last week to confirm my reading of the Bill that we could get full devolution without a referendum just by the use of the order process. In fairness to him, he came back to me during the week and confirmed what I said: it would be slow butthis is the important pointinexorable. The people of Wales cannot escape that while Ministers who share the view of the Secretary of State are making the decisions. Full powers can be achieved by the order-making process alone. Yes, it is slow but virtually nothing can stop it while Ministers are so determined.
	The Bill is clear. That consequence has already been described. A majority of one and we jump right through to full devolution. A defeat by 100,000 or 250,000 and we will come back again and again and again. Ministers have not even been willing to put in the safeguard of a time limit. They go to the Select Committee and indicate the time that they think would pass before anything different could be introduced, but they are not willing to put any time limit in the Bill.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Cannot one argue that there is a presumption in favour of devolution on the basis that we had a referendum on the principle of devolution? Therefore, the Assembly having been set up, one can assume that there is a progression. As Ron Davies used to say, devolution is a process, not an outcome. I think that he had a lot of wise words to say about devolution. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the principle of devolution was established in 1997 in the referendum and now we are discussing the pace at which it progresses? That is why one would establish the criteria that he described.

Alan Williams: We can go forward, but we cannot go back. That is astonishing. It is a somewhat interesting perspective on what constitutes democracy. I will come to that in a moment.
	Despite the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be a minimum of two full Assembly terms before there is a second referendum, the Government have not accepted that. Despite the First Minister's indication that a generation would be needed before there could be a second referendum, the Secretary of State has not accepted that. Despite his own declaration that it would be a very long time before there was a second referendum, he has not even been willing to incorporate a very long time in the Bill. Why? I have not seen the quotation that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham read out, but a time limit is not included in the Bill because he is waiting for a moment of political opportunism. That is what it is about. He will not put a time limit in. He will just wait for the opportunity, if there is one. If that opportunity arises, he will jump while he can to get the vote that he wants. Meanwhile, we shall still have the drip, drip, drip of the order-making process. For that reason, I welcome the amendment that was tabled by my hon. Friends; I apologise for jumping in before them. I wish that the interval had been substantially longer, but at least I agree with the principle.
	I tabled my amendment not in the expectation that it would be accepted but because I want to alert the people of Wales to the fact that, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has just revealed, the people of Wales are trappedthey were trapped by the original Bill. I described it then as a constitutional mystery tour, but the mystery has gone. We are now on a one-way escalator with two buttons: slow and fast. There is no stop and certainly no reverse, as we heard from the hon. Gentleman. The devo-zealots will not contemplate the fact that the people of Wales have as much right to think of going back as they have of going forward. They are not willing to offer them that option. They could put it at nil cost on the ballot paper to resolve once and for all perhaps the issue of whether the people of Wales want devolution, but we can rest assured that that choice will not be offered.
	The Secretary of StateI am not knocking him for thisis a self-declared enthusiast for full legislative power. I am as sceptical as he is enthusiastic. I respect his position, although I do not agree with it, and I hope that he respects the sincerity of my position and what I am saying. What worries me is the determination that he shows. He showed it in his evidence to the Select Committee. I quoted this last time but it is worth repeating. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones):
	Have the people of Wales ever been consulted over the Order in Council procedure?
	He replied:
	There was a widespread process of consultation following the Richard Commission, in which both Rhodri and I were in exactly the same position, that we wanted to see the Assembly get on with its task of having greater powers following 2007 and did not want to wait.
	He and Rhodri did not want to wait. That sounds like a great consultative process. He says that he consulted on the Richard commission. He consulted, and then he ditched it, because he and Rhodri did not want to wait.
	There is something even more revealing, and I asked about it in my speech last week. When I was talking about consultation, I asked Ministers to put in the Library the consultative papers that had been issued before the election. The White Paper and the Bill came afterwards, but what papers had been issued for the people of Wales, to consult them about this switch to the salami-slicing of the order-making process? In fairness, I must tell the House that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary gave me a firm answer: there were no papers to go in the Library.
	There had been no consultative processwith one exception: there had been consultation within the party. That worries me even more. Of course the Minister should consult the party; that is rightbut I am talking about what happened before the election. He knew his intentions before the election. He knew his intentions after the election as wellbut he decided that he did not want to bother the people of Wales with them. Well, I think that the people of Wales deserve better than that.

Lembit �pik: I have considerable issues with amendment No. 189, and I suspect that, on reflection, those on the Conservative Front Bench ought to feel the same. That is because there is a simple precedent for mechanisms with regard to holding referendums on constitutional issues affecting nations within the United Kingdom.
	I am, of course, referring to Northern Ireland, where we have a clear structure that determines when and how often referendums can be held on the reunification of the north and south of Ireland. As far as I know, when that legislation was framed, the Conservatives did not object to the framework allowing a referendum to be held more than once. I certainly do not recall any Conservative spokesperson on the referendum provisions for Northern Ireland saying at any point that they thought that there should be only one referendum, and that if the idea were defeated, the question of reunifying the north and the south of Ireland would have to be shelved forever.

David Davies: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I was not in the House at that time, but surely he recognises that the situation in Northern Ireland is unique, and that Governments, particularly the last Conservative Government and the present Labour Government, had been trying to overcome a very difficult situation to bring peace there. It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to use that as an example of a referendum framework that could be repeated elsewhere. A better example would be something like entry into the European Union, where there is scope for a further referendum that might change the direction of our European policy at some point in the future.

Lembit �pik: The only reason why my example may seem unfair to the hon. Gentleman is that it utterly contradicts his party's position. The principle is the same: significant constitutional change to a nation state of the United Kingdom. The question is whether a referendum of this type can be held more than once, or whether one single referendum is binding. I am in no doubt that the comparison is entirely valid, so for the Conservatives to say, as they do in amendment No. 189, that we have the referendum once, and if the idea is defeated, never again, suggests that they feel that we could have a referendum once only in the north of Ireland, and if that idea were defeated, never again.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: I will; just let me finish this point. Obviously, I am willing to hear any clarification that the hon. Lady can give me. I feel that we need joined-up thinking in such important constitutional debates, rather than having one argument in one debate about Wales, and a different argument in a different debate about Northern Ireland.

Cheryl Gillan: To equate Northern Ireland with Wales or Scotland is to misunderstand the situation entirely. I have a question for the hon. Gentleman: do he and his party, believe that there should be the same voting system and the same constitutional arrangements in Ireland, Wales and Scotland? That is where his argument is leading.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady says that I am making a false equation between the two situations, and that I do not fully understand them. I humbly suggest that in the nine years that I have been speaking on Northern Ireland matters on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, in the various debates that I have had on exactly this point I may have picked up one or two salient points regarding the comparisons that I make. In fairness, I must recognise that the hon. Lady did not take part in those debates, but the Secretary of State for Wales, coincidentallyand, on this occasion, helpfully, I thinkcan provide his own perspective, if he is the Minister who will respond to the amendments. I suspect that he will agree with me that there is no fundamental difference in having a significant referendum on constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland and having a significant referendum on constitutional arrangements in Wales.
	As for the hon. Lady's second point, the issue at stake is not whether there is a difference of principle, but whether in WalesI shall focus on Wales for the momentit is acceptable to give the Welsh people one chance, and if the answer is no, to terminate any prospect of developing the devolution process further.
	I was not sympathetic to the idea of having a referendum in the first place. However, that is not the main point with this string of amendments, so notwithstanding that, I shall turn to the comments made by the Father of the House, who paraphrased me and suggested that I had said, We can go forward, but we can't go back. Actually, that is not far from what I said. More to the point, it is exactly what the leader of his party, the Prime Minister, has said; he said that he had no reverse gear. He has also said that every time that he has initiated a reform, he wishes that he had gone further. [Interruption.]
	I hear howls of woe from the Government Benches, suggesting a rebellion among the Labour MPs from Wales who are here. I understand that they may not be happy with this. Nevertheless, my understanding is that if we initiate some constitutional changes, we must make the assumption that, the principle having been set, there will be an evolutionary process that goes with it.
	The Father of the House is entirely justified in taking a different view. It is a difference of judgment. However, on behalf of myself and the Liberal Democrats, I would summarise the situation by saying that once the devolution process has been set in motion, there will be a momentum within it that will militate in favour of giving more powers to the Welsh Assembly, rather than stalling at some fairly arbitrary point by putting a cap on the number of referendums that can take place.
	I understand the case for having some kind of structure and timetable governing the frequency of referendums. I am less unsympathetic to the attempt, rudimentary as it may be, in a couple of the amendments that have been tabled on that basis, because that more closely reflects the situation in Northern Ireland. However, the Liberal Democrats are not very keen on having a referendum on this matter at all, because we think that it is acceptable and appropriate for us to assume that the Welsh Assembly should have the same kind of powers as Scotland. I do not need to dwell on that, because we had a fairly significant debate on that subject yesterday in the context of changing the name from the Welsh Assembly to the Welsh Senedd.
	In conclusion, I understand that there is a genuine difference of view. I believe that there is a contradiction between the way in which the Conservatives are approaching this piece of legislation and their approach to Northern Ireland legislation. I believe that that comparison is valid, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman keeps on making comparisons with Northern Ireland legislation, but unless I am mistaken, the mechanism there limits referendums to once in a decade. Is he therefore suggesting that such a provision should be introduced into this Bill?

Lembit �pik: I feel that I am almost negotiating with the Conservatives on this issue. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is so moved by my argument that he accepts the case for a structured revisiting of the referendum process on a limited time scale, that is progress. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) says that I did not listen to what she said earlier, but let me remind her of what I said. I said that we Liberal Democrats are not keen on holding a referendum at all, so for us, including this element in the Bill is otiose. I am suggesting to those who seek a referendum that it is inappropriate to hold one just once, and then to prevent one from being held ever again.
	As I said, I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about this issue. But I counsel those who seek to discuss the question of referendums, and other elements of such Bills, that it is vital that we learn lessons from other aspects of the United Kingdom devolution programme. In order to remain consistent, one must make sure that one does not introduce inconsistencies through amendments.

Hywel Francis: The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and I arise out of recommendations made by the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I chair, and they enjoy broad cross-party support. The amendments deal with the possibility of subsequent referendums on the granting of primary legislative powers to the National Assembly. The Bill allows for a final stage of devolution, whereby the Assembly would become a fully functioning Parliament with primary legislative powers. I agree with the Government that a referendum of the people of Wales is necessary before that stage is reached, in order to achieve proper democratic legitimacy. However, should a referendum not deliver a decision in favour of giving such powers, it would be wrong for a series of subsequent referendums to be held until one of them delivered the desired yes result. I, along with many other Members, believe that such an exercise would diminish the democratic process.

Lembit �pik: I shall resist intervening frequently on the hon. Gentleman, but I simply want to ask him this. Would he apply that same principle to Northern Ireland and the question of reunification?

Hywel Francis: We are discussing Wales, not Northern Ireland, which is another matter.
	My Committee highlighted the concern to which I just referred and it recommended that, should a first referendum return a no vote, a subsequent one should not be held for a further two National Assembly terms. We believe that that is perfectly reasonable. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I approach this issue as an enthusiast for devolution. That may sound contradictory, but I believe that we have to show respect for the decisions taken by the people of Wales, and to give some time for reflection. I shall develop that point in a moment.
	Both the Secretary of State and the First Minister acknowledge that, if a first referendum failed to deliver a yes result, a period of reflection would be necessary. Similarly, they are both of the view that a no result would put the issue off the agenda in Wales for a very long time. I agree with that view, as did my Committee, but I do not agree with the Government that the provisions already contained in the Bill are sufficient to prevent short-term repeated referendums, even if undertaken only as a political exercise. My amendment, which was inspired by the Welsh Affairs Committee's recommendations, would ensure that short-term repeated referendums could not happen. It would set a time limit within which a subsequent referendum could not be helda further two Assembly general elections.
	My amendments have two benefits. First, those in favour of granting primary powers, those against doing so, and the Welsh public at largebe they indifferent or undecidedwould be clear about the implications of a no result. Such information is important if an informed decision is to be made.

Philip Hollobone: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but is it not possible that his envisaged timetable might not be as long as he thinks? His amendment uses the phrase
	in advance of two further Assembly general elections,
	which does not rule out the possibility of a referendum being held at the same time as an Assembly general election. The time scale could therefore be shorter than he perhaps has in mind.

Hywel Francis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I have noted it. I may deal with it in a moment, through the other points that I am about to make.
	Secondly, my amendment would provide a defined time period, during which thoughts about, and plans for, a subsequent referendum would be unnecessary. That would avoid the potential for doing needless work anddare I say it?indulging in political posturing. In his response to my Committee's report, the Secretary of State argued that a subsequent referendum would need the approval of the National Assembly and both Houses of Parliament, and that that was a sufficient safeguard. He is correct to say that that safeguard would prevent a subsequent referendum from going ahead, but it would not prevent the National Assembly from making premature requests for subsequent referendums. My amendment would prevent that problem from arising and avoid the need for making judgment calls on the appropriateness of the timing of subsequent requests for referendums.

Adam Price: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in addition to repeated capricious requests for referendums, it would also be unacceptable to have a long delay such as we experienced between 1979 and 1997? The timetable that he describes would prevent repeated referendums, but it would also preventhopefullyan unacceptably long delay until another referendum.

Hywel Francis: Indeed, and that is a very important point. Those of us who experienced the wait to which the hon. Gentleman refers recall that it was a very long wait, whereas eight years is a relatively short time.
	My amendment would provide the clarity and certainty in respect of referendum procedures that my Committee emphasised is necessary. I ask Members to support it, and I urge the Secretary of State, as a supporter of democratic devolution, to reflect on these issues.

John Gummer: Not for the first time, I found the most surprising intervention in a debate to be one from a Liberal Democrat spokesman. On two different grounds, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) totally missed the point. First, he made the amazing suggestion that, having had a referendum of the people of Wales on the question of whether they wanted a very restricted form of devolutionmany of the Members representing Plaid Cymru, along with others, were unhappy about thatno further reference to referendums should be allowed. This is a new constitutional concept, and evidently it is one that the Liberal Democrats might spread to other matters. The idea is that one makes a tiny decision and thereafter no movement from it should ever be allowed, whatever the circumstances, because one has signed up for ever to a rolling programme. The only question is whether it rolls fast or slow. This amazing and unusual proposal should have appeared in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. It took some doing, but I read that document. As far as I understand, it was never likely to contain such a proposal.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman has described my feelings about being in the Liberal Democrats over the past two weeks. His general point is correct, but it is not right to say that we would allow no further reference to the public. Manifestos for elections to the Welsh Assembly and to this House offer an authoritative way to consult the public.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's use of words allows me to explain my deep opposition to all referendums. When Parliament makes a decision such as this, it does so on behalf of the whole nation. People who are affected by it can vote on it, whether or not they are in Wales or Scotland. That would not happen with a referendum, even though UK citizens who live in England also have a part to play. A parliamentary democracy offers a much more sensible way to proceed.
	The unfortunate thing for the hon. Gentleman is that we chose to proceed by referendum. When people are asked in a referendum to accept one form of devolution, it is very peculiar then to ask them to move to a different form of devolution that has been decided on in an entirely different manner. Indeed, that decision would be neither parliamentary nor derived from a referendum.
	The Bill proposes a mechanism for devolution by salami slices. As the Father of the House pointed out, at the end of the process a referendum will be proposed, even though by that stage all the matters that could be decided by referendum will have been devolved. That is a unique and dangerous parliamentary conceptalthough no more so than the Liberal Democrat proposition that people are never asked at all.

Roger Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Liberal Democrats, and various other parties, have always favoured devolution as a way of giving the Welsh Assembly primary legislative powers. As he said, a referendum would consult only the Welsh people and not the English, even though the outcome affects them as much as the Welsh. That is why we believe that there should not be a referendum.

John Gummer: I have various problems with that observation. First, it is not true that the Liberal Democrats have always been in favour of devolution. When they managed to win an election in Britain as a whole, they were against it. They were happy not to have devolution when they thought that they could have power in the country as a whole. They became keen on devolution when they lost power, as devolution offered a different opportunity.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman is going back to 1922.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that I am going back to 1922, but that is how far one has to go back to find the last time that the Liberals played an active part in British politics.
	We have decided that decisions on these matters will be made at a referendum. I oppose referendums, which I consider to be inimical to the British system. However, if the referendum mechanism is to be used, it is vital to ensure that major decisions are arrived at as a result. The affair in question must be settled, at least for a reasonable period of time.
	We can argue about how long is reasonable, and I agree that a referendum cannot be held whose result is that no other referendum can ever be held. On the other hand, it cannot be desirable to have a system under which referendums are held so often that people become so fed up with voting that only a few zealots turn out. If those zealots should win by two votes, they would call it a remarkable victory. That is what the Father of the House is worried about, and any democrat should share his concern. The Select Committee was of the same opinion, even though its Chairman holds a view about devolution that is the complete opposite of the one held by the Father of the House.
	That shows that serious people with different views can come to the same conclusion on the question of referendums. They agree that a proper timetable is needed to prevent referendums from being used for what may be called partial purposes.
	The Secretary of State may say that we should not worry about what he and his Ministers do, as they will behave perfectly properly, but that is not my experience of the referendum process in England. The Government wanted to hold three referendums about the governance of the English regions, but when it became clear that they would lose at least two of them, they were not held.
	The parallel that I am making is related to the amendment under discussion, as a referendum was held in the north-east. The Government thought that they would win it, but they lost so heavily that the result looked like a vote in an African dictatorship, only in reverse. The Government lost appallingly badly in an area where Ministers were very active and indeed represented parliamentary seats.
	My point is that, although the Government failed to win the planned referendums, they nevertheless carried on implementing their regional policy, come what may. That is what could happen in Wales: a referendum is not held because it cannot be won, but the policy that would have followed a victory is implemented anyway.
	I should point out that, under this Government, regionalism means taking away powers from local government and giving them to a regional assembly. The Government's failure in the first referendum of the proposed three was so bad that the other two were never held but, even so, they were determined to go ahead with the process that they had decided on. That is the problem with this Bill, and it is emphasised in this clause.
	The Father of the House made the same point. On no other occasion over many years have he and I agreed on so much. I want to celebrate that: it does not embarrass me, even though it may embarrass him. His reverence for Parliament and his longevitywhich I hope to emulate

Ian Lucas: This speech is longer than his.

John Gummer: It is a pleasure for me to say that the observations of the Father of the House contain a very important truththat the Bill, if it is not dishonest, is deeply flawed. The Bill pretends to have two parts. One part gives some additional powers to the Welsh Assembly, in accordance with the Labour party's manifesto. The other part gives full devolution to Wales, after a referendum.
	Unlike many Conservative Members, I am not especially opposed to a devolved structure. However, I do oppose a devolved structure that disfranchises my constituents and renders English Members of Parliament second rate, at least in terms of the powers available to them. I am not opposed to the nature and principle of devolution. I do not stand on the same side as the Father of the House on that. I do think, however, that we ought to face all the issues at once instead of having the system we have, which is a dog's breakfast that fails to recognise the problems of the West Lothian question.
	We are being asked to have a referendum on a new basisthat the referendum will be part of normal governmental activity until the Government have managed to achieve devolution. That is what the Bill means. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made that very clear, and I believe her to be right.
	The parallel with Northern Ireland is manifest nonsense. In the north of Ireland, we have had a continuing situation of violence and disorder. The six counties are constantly upset by two powerful tribal issues: unity and independence from the south. Those battles are unique to that part of the United Kingdom, and, happily, pretty unusual in the world as a whole. The House has always accepted that dealing with the six counties is a matter of total difference from what we do elsewhere because its history is totally different. It would be ridiculous to say that because we have to do X, Y or Z in the north of Ireland, we have to do the same elsewhere, or, indeed, to say that because we want to do something different elsewhere we have for some reason or other to do it in Northern Ireland.
	If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire does not remember what an 8th century pope said, it would be a good idea for him to do so now. In the 8th century, a pope very properly said that Ireland is different and has to be treated differently. It would have been wise of the House to have thought that in the 19th century and to have followed the views of Cardinal Manning instead of those of Lord Salisbury.
	The referendum is being presented as a continuous part of governmental life. We shall have it again and again until the people of Wales make the choice that the Secretary of State wants them to make. That seems to me to be the opposite of democracy. It is an example, again, from the Government of Louis NapoleonNapoleon III. It is how he used referendums. Whenever he found the Government a little difficult or whenever the structure that he had invented produced a result that he did not like, he had a referendum. He even had a particularly nasty and unpleasant one that he called crowning the edifice. It was held to make sure that what he wanted was voted for, because he arranged for it to work like that. That is one of the reasons why I so deeply object to referendums.
	All referendums actually do is ask people the question we want to ask them in the way most calculated to get the answer we want and which is an answer that happens to be true on the day the referendum is held. It is often an answer that has nothing to do with the question, being about what people feel about the Government or whoever asked it. It is a load of nonsense and we should never have joined up to it. I am sorry that my party has agreed to referendums on a whole range of situations in which they are wholly unsuitable.
	Having had a referendum in Wales, however, we cannot go for the Liberal concept of slipping a whole matter through because the electorate have made their bed and must lie in it. Nor can we go for the socialist concept of creating a part 3 of the Bill that makes sure that we deliver the whole thing by salami slicing it. Nor, if they do not get it that way, can we allow part 4 to let them have as many referendums as it takes for the Secretary of State for Wales to be able to say to his grandchildren that he was the one who forced devolution on the Welsh. Given the right hon. Gentleman's background, I am not sure that I think he is suitable to do that.
	We ought to have a change to this part of the Bill for democratic reasons. We should change it because it makes referendums even more silly than they were in the first place. Above all, we should have a change to remind the people of Wales just how devious the Bill is and how much it is using time in the House of Commons to sew together the divisions in the Labour party.

Dai Havard: I have a particular view on referendums. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on them. I do not really like them as a basic idea, but we are in the historical situation that, since Harold Wilson's day, on constitutional issues we have devised the mechanism of referendums. Sometimes we have done so for reasons of political expediency, but they have become part of the fabric.
	Interestingly enough, there were thresholds in the referendums that were held in the 1970s. Some say that referendums should not be provided for in the Bill. I say that it is important that the Bill contains a measure that institutionalises the fact that if we are to have primary powers, we will have to have a referendum. There are those who would not want to have one even at that stage. That was part of the discussion that surrounded the Richard commission and so on. There were people who wanted to proceed without such a mechanism. We have to go back to the people.
	Those who forget where the last referendums were would do well to go and revisit them. Let us be clear. Only half of the electorate turned out, and only half of those who did voted yes. So, in the words of Antonio Gramsci, we have to temper our enthusiasm with the pessimism of the intellect. We had better not run too far ahead of the people on these questions.
	Interestingly enough, I remember the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) is a member. It was a unanimous report. It was certainly no minority report.

Adam Price: The full quote from Gramsci referred not just to the pessimism of the intellect but to the optimism of the will. How about some of the latter in the hon. Gentleman's remarks?

Dai Havard: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. It will not happen very often, but perhaps on this occasion I will help him. What has happened here is that those people have gone away and looked at the reality of where we are now against the historical process that we have come through with regard to referendums in Wales and they have determined that what is more sensible is the sort of proposition that has come from my hon. Friend. It does not debar the process from being revisited within sensible periods of time, but it does stopI dread to say this because I do not want to start the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) off again about Northern Ireland. It is a strange twist on the Vote early, vote often theory that we have had from the Liberal Democrats.
	There ought to be a great deal of support for the argument that has come from the Select Committee. It recognises that the mechanism needs to be enshrined in the Bill, but there is a tempered process that provides proper periods for reflection not only by the Houses of Parliament and the Assembly but by the people of Wales so that processes that have been put in place have the opportunity to mature.
	The Assembly is a new institution. I forget when it was set up, but it has not had much of a life yet to mature. I differ from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal in that I struggle with this question. Is the process that we are putting in place sufficient to justify a referendum now? I come down in a different position to him, but if we are going to look for primary powers we have to have a referendum. This seems to me the sensible process that follows that.

David Davies: I was one of the people who was involved in that last referendum, very much on the anti side. It is my experience that a significant number of people in Wales then and now want primary legislative powers. It is also fair to say, and I hope that everyone recognises, that a large number of people in Wales preferred the status quo and believed that Wales best played out its destiny as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I was one of those people; I was proud to be Welsh and proud to be British; proud to be a Welsh Unionist, if you like.
	Many people in my situation are disappointed that the door effectively has been slammed shut on any change in the constitutional direction. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. pik)seems to think that we should never change direction constitutionally; that we can never make mistakes. Perhaps I may remind my two Liberal Democrat colleagues that one of the biggest constitutional changes this country has ever made was to get rid of the monarchy. The experiment lasted only 11 years. We recognised that we had made a mistake and we went back in the other direction. It is a shame that we slammed the door on doing that in Wales.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the option of full primary legislative powers was never offered to the Welsh people? Is he saying now that he would be happy for the Assembly to be got rid of altogether?

David Davies: I would be happy to see another referendum that included that question, but that is my preference, not my party's. There is a slight difference between us on that. I have never made any secret of my view and I shall not pretend that I have changed my mind in the past few weeks. As the hon. Gentleman says, the referendum was on whether to have an Assembly, not a Parliament with primary legislative powers. If we are to have such a Parliament, we should have a full referendum on it.
	I do not accept the implication that perhaps more people would have voted in favour of a Welsh Assembly had they been offered a Parliament. Had the Government thought that there was any support for having primary legislative powers in Wales, that would have been on offer in the first place, not the model we have now. Indeed, that would have been a far more coherent way to go about the project.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman wrote on 30 June 2005:
	The Government are in the process of giving extra powers to the Welsh Assembly at present. Given the dreadful lack of competence in the areas in which the Assembly has got powers this is something I will be opposing.
	There is an enormous difference between what he and his Welsh Conservative colleagues say and what their Front Benchers say. Does he regard a referendum as a potential way to fulfil his own goal of reducing the level of devolution, rather than increasing it or maintaining it at its current level?

David Davies: Time is short and I shall not go over my views again and again. Suffice it to say that I have not changed my mind. I am one of many people in Wales who did not want the Welsh Assembly, but unlike those who want a Parliament, I accept the situation as it is. I accept that we have an Assembly and I want to see it work, but I cannot accept a situation in which those who want primary legislative powers can come back over and over again, with one referendum after another, until they get the result that they want. That is why I support the amendments.

Peter Hain: We have had some interesting contributions, and some tantalising bait was dangled before me by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) and the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). I shall not bite at that bait because I am concerned about meeting the terms of the programme motion that was unanimously agreed.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for his general support for the Bill, but a Liberal Democrat source was reported in The Times recently as saying that
	the last thing anyone wants is for him to declare for them. They're calling it the curse of Lemsip.
	I shall luxuriate in the fact that he does not support me on this occasion.
	There is widespread agreement across the House, including the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that there should be a referendum if we move to primary powers. I also agree with the spirit of amendment No. 189 in the sense that we cannot keep calling referendums until the voters, exhausted, simply say yes. That point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The very idea that we should have an everendum that just kept going in the way that was described is completely unacceptable and I think that the people of Wales would revolt against it. We need to come down to earth politically on that point.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about my motives. My view on the time frame is straightforward. In the end, the question of a referendum is not up to me because it is for the Assembly to initiate the process with a two-thirds majority. If she was asking for my view, I do not think that there is a case for considering holding a referendum in the next term of the Assembly, which will run from 2007 to 2011, because there will be a new political architecture in the Assembly if the Bill is passed and the new streamlined process of powers will be bedding down. I do not think that the issue will arise until at least the following Assembly term. We can all agree that the additional procedures provided under part 3 will need to establish themselves. We will then be able to determine whether that process has provided the streamlined process of decision making for which the Assembly has asked, whether there is a need to call a referendum, or whether a period of conflict has existed between Westminster and Wales that has provoked conditions such as those in the late 1990s that resulted in a turnaround of opinion from that in 1979 and produced the yes vote in 1997.

Alan Williams: I am impressed that the Secretary of State finds distasteful what we find so distasteful. In that case, why does he not legislate against it?

Peter Hain: For the reasons that I am about to explain to my right hon. Friend and the House.
	The amendments are an attempt to address the perceived risk that repeat referendums could be held on the commencement of Assembly Act provisions. I do not think that an explicit provision is required to stop repeat referendums, whether that is of the type proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), or that proposed by the Conservative party, because the Bill provides for an environment of consensus. Hon. Members who have spoken do not seem to have recognised that a two-thirds majority of the Assembly would be required. I have been criticised for insisting on a two-thirds majority, and ardent advocates of primary powers say that it will create an obstacle. I make no apology for the proposal because I do not consider it to be an obstacle.
	If we are going to go for a referendum, it makes elementary political sense to say that we must be satisfied that the conditions are at least those that existed in 1997, with Welsh Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymruand probably sections of the Welsh Conservativesbeing in favour of a referendum and full primary law-making powers. The two-thirds majority is an essential check on whether there is consensus. In addition, a vote in the House and the House of Lords will be required, so Parliament will have to endorse that position. The idea that a series of referendums could be called one year after anotherQuebec-styleis not realistic given the need for a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and a vote in the House of Commons and House of Lords. My answer to the fair question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West is thus that a process of caution is built into the Bill.
	A further point, albeit not a decisive one, would be in the background and could figure in public debate. Referendums are costly. It is estimated that a referendum would cost about 7 million, which is another reason why the people of Wales would revolt at the idea of continual referendums. History teaches us the political reality. When the referendum was lost in 1979, it took until 1997 to create the conditions in which it was felt that there was consensus to move again. We do not need legislation on the matter because it would put rigid barriers in the way of the politics. We and the people of Wales want politics to reflect the centre of gravity of Welsh politics, which is where I humbly believe that the Bill is situated.
	The problem with amendment No. 189 is that it would throw away the key for the future. In that spirit, I hope that the hon. Lady withdraws it and that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon will not push his amendments to a vote. There are sufficient locks to require political consensus to be created, through a two-thirds vote in the Assembly initially, and then with this House and the House of Lords having the final say. I do not think that Parliament would stand for continuous referendums to bully people into voting yes, even if the Assembly repeatedly requested them. There is no support for that in the House and I, as the Secretary of State responsible for introducing the Bill, would have no truck with it.

Cheryl Gillan: We have had an interesting debate, which has gone on longer than I anticipated because of the significant contributions by some hon. Members. To defer to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) summed up the situation well. The Secretary of State is a man in a hurry. He does not want to wait. In a devastating critique, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West outlined that there is an element of political opportunism. What came through was that the Secretary of State is not showing any duty of care to the people of Wales by allowing the Bill to stand in the form that is before us. What I derived from the Father of the House's contribution is that this is an experiment with the constitutional position of Wales, which is not advisable and will do no good.
	The fact that the Secretary of State was invited to place papers in the Library and papers were there none is also fairly significant. The consultation appeared to be only within the party and not with the public. That also goes some way to revealing the mindset behind the Bill.
	I shall touch only briefly on the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), because his contribution was not one of his best. However, I want to defend him. The Secretary of State was unnecessarily cruel in his taunting. It is understandable that his arguments were not as comprehensive as usual in the circumstances.

Lembit �pik: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I have had a lot on my mind recently, and I give her my unequivocal backing in her career.

Cheryl Gillan: I am happy to receive it because fortunately I am not running for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats, although I might make a better job of it than some other people.
	As Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) has done a sterling job in difficult circumstances. I do not think that his Committee was fully consulted by the Secretary of State. I certainly do not think that it has been taken along in the process. He approaches the problem from a different dimension. Whereas the right hon. Member for Swansea, West may not be a great enthusiast for devolution, the hon. Gentleman is, but even he has problems with the way in which the Bill stands.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in the bravura performance that we have come to expect, made the points in his inimitable fashion. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) was tempted to participate in the debate. He said that we must not run too far ahead of the people. I agree entirely. I was delighted that he participated because we have not been treated to many contributions by the Labour Members who represent Welsh constituencies. It was good to see the hon. Gentleman making a contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) said that the proposals would make Wales a political football, and he was quite right.
	I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State. He says that nothing will happen until 2011it might be some time after thatbut he is trying to legislate today. He also said that there might be a period when Westminster was in conflict with Cardiff; I am not entirely sure that Westminster is not in conflict with Cardiff at the moment, but I do not want to intrude on the private agonies of the Labour party. But that is no excuse for bringing forward this legislation. I do not accept his arguments.
	I see, rather, a strange consensus. He said that he wanted consensus, and he has it; from Swansea, West, from Suffolk, Coastal, from Aberavon, from, I think, Merthyr Tydfil, and from Chesham and Amersham. Therefore, I have no choice but to put my amendment to the vote in order to place on record our belief that the Bill should not provide the opportunity for repeat referendums and for turning Wales into a political football. By not acceding to any of the amendments that I or the hon. Member for Aberavon have tabled, the Secretary of State has brought this vote on himself.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 152, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.

Adam Price: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 56, line 25, at end insert
	'(3A)   If a resolution passed by the Assembly under section 103 includes the text of the question which the Assembly proposes should be included on the ballot paper at the referendum, that text shall be included in any recommendation made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under subsection (1).'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 194, in schedule 6, page 112, line 32, at end insert
	'1A  Both the question to be included on the ballot paper and any statement to precede the question must first have been approved by each House of Parliament in a procedure where the question and statement shall have been capable of amendment by each House.'.

Adam Price: Amendment No. 31 seeks to give the National Assembly for Wales the right and responsibility of setting the wording on any future referendum under the provisions of clause 102. As the Library has pointed out, it is unusual for the wording of a referendum question not to be set out in a Bill. Indeed, there is only one other example of this not happening. We had a lengthy discussion recently on the uniqueness of Wales vis--vis Northern Ireland. Only in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is there another example of the wording not being set out in the legislation.
	The Conservative amendment, which we do not support, would provide the opposite solution to ours, namely that the wording should be set out by Parliament. We believe that the people of Wales should decide on these matters, and that their representatives should decide on the wording of the question in a referendum on the extension of the principle of democratic sovereignty. As we know, timing is a key parameter of success when it comes to calling a referendum. We had a lengthy discussion on such issues in our debate on the last few amendments.
	The other key parameter is the wording on the referendum ballot paper, which can influence the likelihood of success. As opinion pollsters know, the wording of a question can affect the level of support that a proposal attracts. We have seen that in relation to questions of devolution over the years. I suggest that a question asking the people of Wales whether the National Assembly for Wales should have law-making powers would be more likely to succeed than a question asking whether it should have more power, in an open-ended way. These are subtle differences, but they can affect the likelihood of success.
	The referendum in question, as with every other referendum, will be subject to the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which will mean that the Electoral Commission will pronounce on the intelligibility of the question and produce a report, according to its guidelines, to ensure that the question is clear, concise and impartial. Nevertheless, the power to set the wording of the referendum question is an important one, and it should properly reside with the elected representatives in the national representative institution of the people of Walesthe National Assemblywhich is what our amendment seeks to achieve.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee's report suggested that the wording should be set out in the Bill in the interests of clarity. However, the Government's response rejected that proposal, saying, rather mysteriously, that the wording should reflect the circumstances and the timing of the question's being put. That almost suggests that the referendum might happen in some future century, when the English and Welsh languages might have evolved in some way. The Government's response proves my point that subtle differences can be introduced into the wording of a question. The power to set the wording is therefore an important one.
	The other issue that the Welsh Affairs Committee was trying to resolve in its way, and that we are trying to resolve in ours, is that of the lack of clarity as to how the wording will be decided. This could become a major political issue. As we have seen, the issue of where the power to decide the wording lies became a major issue in Quebec following the 1995 referendum there. Even now, we can see the jostling between Ottawa and Quebec for the proper constitutional authority over that issue. Ottawa has passed the Clarity Act to give itself the constitutional authority over the wording of any future referendum question, but the Quebec Government insist that they still have that power. We, too, need clarity, because we do not have it at present in this regard.

Elfyn Llwyd: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and I fully agree with him. Let me take him back a few sentences to when he said that the procedure proposed in the Bill would mean that the Government here would decide on the wording, and that that would be overseen by the Electoral Commission. Does he agree that this Government's track record of listening to the Electoral Commission is not all that good, given that the commission has said that there is no case whatever for banning dual candidacy?

Adam Price: As ever, my hon. Friend has made a strong point, which constitutes a trenchant criticism of the governing party. Presumably the Electoral Commission could produce a report criticising the wording, and its independent advice could be ignored again.

Alex Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Arbuthnott commission, appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, considered this very subject. It decided that the attempt to ban dual candidacy was undemocratic, and the work of a political party that did not understand the process.

Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman has made another excellent point. The Government do not have a very good record of listening to independent commissions when the results of their inquiries do not accord with their own narrow party advantage. That is why we do not propose that the wording should be decided by an independent commission. We should remember that the Government did not listen to the Richard commission.
	The solution is clear: if the Secretary of State wants the referendum to work on the basis of party consensus, he should take account of the consensus that would have triggered the referendum in the first place. The National Assembly should decide this important matternot this House or the other place, not English, Scottish or Northern Irish Members of Parliament, but directly elected Assembly Members in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: My amendment No. 194 is straightforward, so I shall not detain the Committee for long. The amendment requires both the question on the ballot paper and the statements preceding it to be amendable and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
	It seems only right to me for Parliament, when preparing to devolve primary powers, to have the right to approve and/or amend the essence of questions about the process being put to the public. That would help to ensure scrutiny of what is a bit of a political hot potato, and I do not believe that the Government have provided for it in the Bill.
	I heard what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and I admit that I have some sympathy with it. Like him, I hope that the spirit of consensus that the Secretary of State keeps dangling before us will come home to roost one daythat he may agree with something that Opposition Members say, and incorporate it in the Bill. I doubt it very much, but we live in hope. I shall listen carefully to what the Secretary of State has to say.

Peter Hain: Despite the honourable and valiant attempt of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to build consensus with Plaid Cymru, there are two separate points here. The first is that Parliament is ultimately in charge, and has to be. I do not think that amendment No. 31under which the Assembly would be in charge, and Parliament would simply rubber-stamp the wording on which it had decidedis acceptable.
	Clause 102(6) requires the Secretary of State to consult widely, and those consulted will obviously include the Assembly. The Secretary of State will also have to consult the Electoral Commission on the referendum question in the draft Order in Council. That procedure was established by section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As the draft Order in Council will have to be approved by at least two thirds of Assembly Members, I put it to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) that the Assembly's support will be needed. Consensus will be built into the whole process. I think that the Bill would handle the matter much better than either amendment No. 31 or amendment No. 194.
	It is not in the interests of the Government, when about to embark on a referendum to trigger primary powers for the Assembly, to create controversy around the question. There will be enough controversy around the issue at the time. Through the consultation requirements with the Electoral Commission built into the Bill, the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and consultation with the Assembly, a consensus will emerge that it is in no one's interest to disturb.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State appears to have a crystal ball that is not available to the rest of us. He has already said that the provision will probably not come anywhere near us until 2011 plus plus. He has just said, however, that it will be a controversial matter when it does come before us. I contend that it might not be. What does he know that we do not know, and how can he be sure, looking so far into the future, that he knows what will happen? I think that that is slightly arrogant.

Peter Hain: I will not rise to that accusation. All I am saying is that the issue before the people of Wales should be the question on the ballot paperdo they wish to proceed to primary powers for the Assembly or not? That will undoubtedly be controversialI would be surprised if it were unanimous. That is the point.
	In respect of amendment No. 194 tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, the problem with the procedure that she suggests is that it could be a recipe for endless ping-pong if the House of Lords amended an Order in Council, which would be an unusual procedurehalf of the argument of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was, quite properly, that Orders in Council are not amendableor if the House of Commons amended it and then the Assembly amended it. The truth is that we can all agree with the procedure laid down in the 2000 Act, and that is exactly what the Bill does. I ask the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr to withdraw the amendment.

Adam Price: I am sorry that the Secretary of State believes that Parliament is in charge and not the Welsh people, because it was on the latter basis that we worked together to win the referendum in 1997. Nevertheless, I do not want to detain the Committee further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Adam Price: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 56, line 28, after 'Council', insert '(a)'.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 157, in clause 102, page 56, line 29, at end insert
	'or
	(b)   has been laid before each House of Parliament and the Assembly, has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons and of the Assembly, but has been rejected by the House of Lords.
	(4A)   If subsection (4)(b) applies, the referendum shall not be held until one year has elapsed since the date on which the House of Commons came to the resolution.'.
	No. 186, in clause 102, page 56, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
	No. 195, in clause 102, page 56, line 36, at end insert
	'(6A)   The draft of any statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (1) laid before each House of Parliament shall be amendable by either House during its consideration and approval.'.

Adam Price: Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 would remove the absolute veto enjoyed by the other place over the Order in Council setting up the referendum and replace it with a suspensory veto, similar to that which it enjoys over primary legislation under the Parliament Act 1949. There is an important point of principle involved for our party. It would be entirely wrong for an unelected institution to frustrate the will of the Welsh people, as expressed through their directly elected National Assembly, to hold a referendum on the matters contained in the Bill. I hope that some Labour Members agree with that basic principle and will support the idea of democratic sovereignty in that regard.
	The royal commission on reform of the House of Lords proposed replacing the absolute veto over statutory instruments, which is what we are discussing in this instance, with the suspensory veto. It is important to remember that the other place has used its power to reject statutory instruments on a number of occasions. The Secretary of State will remember the famous case involving sanctions against southern Rhodesia in 1968. The House of Lords struck down that order because it supported the white minority Administration in southern Rhodesia. That caused something of a constitutional crisis at the time. However, it has used the power more recently too, during the passage of the Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000, on the issue of freepost. The other place has shown that it is willing to use its power to strike down statutory instruments in the case of elections. Our fear is that, unless the amendment is accepted, the other place, which is not representative of anything in particularit is certainly not representative of Waleswill use its power in the Bill to frustrate the aspirations of the Welsh people and their representatives to move on to the next phase of democratic devolution. That cannot be right.
	The Under-Secretary said in the Second Reading debate that the Parliament Act would not apply to the legislation, so that cannot be used to protect us against the House of Lords striking down an Order in Council in this context. The Salisbury convention will not apply. All we are left with is the First Minister saying in his evidence that new conventions will develop over time, as is the practice in the British constitution. That provides us with no crumb of comfort as we face the possibility that, having achieved the two thirds bar in the National Assembly that has been set down in the Bill, having achieved the political consensus that the Secretary of State refers to constantly, and having achieved an affirmative vote in this House of directly elected Members, we will be frustrated by the unelected Chamber down the corridor. That would be entirely unacceptable and against every honourable radical tradition in Welsh politics.
	We appeal to the Government and to hon. Members to think again about giving the House of Lords an absolute veto in this regard. If a suspensory veto is good enough as regards every other piece of primary legislation, surely it is good enough when we are talking about the historic decision and proposal emanating from elected representatives of the people of Wales to move on to the next phase of democratic devolution.
	The First Minister in his speech in the National Assembly for Wales said that he did not believe that there would be any circumstances where the Order in Council procedure, whether in relation to the referendum or to other aspects of the Bill, would be used to frustrate the will of the Assembly, because to do that would be to
	expose yourself to ridicule, and you would pay the penalty at the next election.
	That argument may apply to the Secretary of State and to the Commons, but it expressly does not apply to the unelected, unaccountable and often unpredictable House of Lords. We cannot expect the House of Lords simply to accede to the demands of this place and the National Assembly in that regard. As Lord Morgan pointed out in his evidence to the National Assembly Committee on Better Governance for Wales White Paper, the House of Lords came very close to throwing out, purely adventitiously, the Health (Wales) Bill. Heeding the clarion callthe bugle callall the Tory peers appeared just before the vote on the hunting ban was taken. They were there and they came very close to striking down the Wales legislation. Surely everything in our political traditions in Wales should tell us that we cannot trust the other place to have the final say on whether we can move on to the next phase in democratic devolution.
	In closing, I shall quote the Secretary of State. This is what he called the House of Lords, which in this Bill he is giving the final say over democratic devolution:
	a rather fey survivor from the pre-democracy days; it is a constitutional dinosaur . . . Unelected peers reflect an elitist state, which is one of the most unaccountable and secretive in the democratic world. It wields power by a combination of the royal prerogative, massive patronage and centralisation, with only a nod towards democracy.[Official Report, 31 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 35759.]
	The right hon. Gentleman must have had better speech writers in those days, but surely the principles that he enunciated in that speech are the same today. The House of Lords should not have a veto over whether Wales moves forward to democratic devolution.

Hywel Francis: Amendment No. 186, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), would limit the role of the Secretary of State to laying a draft order for a referendum, which reflects the recommendation in the Welsh Affairs Committee's report on the White Paper. As things stand, the Secretary of State could refuse to lay the draft order for a referendum even if the National Assembly had voted by a two-thirds majority in favour of holding the referendum. I believe that Parliament alone, not the Government of the day, should accept or reject a request for a referendum.
	I was impressed by what the Secretary of State said in response to earlier amendments about the importance of the sovereignty and primacy of Parliamentand that certainly applies to my amendment. His response to our recent report argued that removing his power of refusal would bypass the Government of the day, but that argument does not stand up. The Government of the day would be able to put forward their position in the debate on the order, and could control the timing of that debate. They would also hold a majority in the House of Commons, which would provide them with the numbers necessary to win a vote. Their views could not and would not be bypassed.
	Ministers also argue that the Government would be
	entitled to test and satisfy itself that the question should be put to the people of Wales.
	I do not understand what form such an additional test would take. Would the Government hold focus groups or phone-ins, or an informal pre-referendum referendum? The necessary test for the referendum trigger is whether two thirds of the Members of the National Assembly for Wales are in favour of a referendum. As the Secretary of State said in another context, such a high threshold would necessitate cross-party support, and would therefore reflect the clear policy view of those partiesand also, surely, the view of those who voted for them.
	Once that test has been satisfied and a request has been made, it should be for Parliament to decide. The Secretary of State is right to say that a move to full legislative competency at the National Assembly would represent a significant constitutional development, but that makes it more important that Parliamentthe sovereign seat of the United Kingdom Governmentrather than the Government of the day, should decide on the merits of the request.
	The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the Government of the day will decide the fate of a request for a referendumbut the Government should have the confidence to make that decision in Parliament, not in Whitehall. For that reason, I ask hon. Members to support my amendment. I am sure that, as a democrat and a supporter of democratic devolution, the Secretary of State will respond positively and wisely to this sensible and modest request. I shall end by quoting the Secretary of State's hero and mine, Aneurin Bevan, on these mattersand I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is listening carefully. Aneurin Bevan said:
	The purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away.

Cheryl Gillan: In reality, we are considering three groups of amendments. Amendment No. 157, tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), appears to give some breathing space before the referendum is held and after approval by the Commons and the Assembly. However, it also seeks to eliminate the role of the House of Lords, and I cannot agree with that, as the hon. Gentleman would doubtless expect me to say. Moreover, such a provision would presumably still apply even if the House of Lords became a wholly elected body; that would be rather anti-democratic.
	I have some sympathy with amendment No. 186. Clause 102(6) is a delaying tactic that can be spun out for as long as the Secretary of State of the day wishes. Removing it would remove some of the Napoleonic powers that the Secretary of State has attracted to himself. If he really wants to keep them he could add a time limit, in order to avoid the Secretary of State of the day deploying such delaying tactics.
	Our amendment, No. 195, is simple, and if the Secretary of State appreciates the principles of sovereignty and the primacy of Parliament, he will have great sympathy with it. It would allow both Houses to examine and amend Orders in Council under subsection (1), and he should have no quarrel that, given his own principles, which he has laid out. I therefore hope that of these amendments he will have the grace to accept mine.

Peter Hain: I very much enjoyed hearing the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) quote my words from some 10 years ago. The burdens of office mean that I cannot indulge in such ringing rhetoric and narrative any more.

David Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but no. I want to make some progress, so I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is another specialist in ringing rhetoric. I should also point out that he is a very able newcomer to the House.
	The problem with amendment No. 157 is that it would introduce a pre-emptive, Parliament Act-type procedure in respect of the referendum order. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr will realise on serious reflection, we cannot introduce into a Government of Wales Bill an entirely new and unprecedented constitutional revolution in the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State will doubtless reflect on the view of Lord Richard, who said in giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee that it would be a devil of a job to get these orders through the House of Lords. So the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) makes through his amendment is a proper one. Secondly, when I challenged the Secretary of State on this issue at a conference in Cardiff, he said that he would invoke the Parliament Act to ensure that this problem did not occur. So it was on his mind then and it is on ours now; so far, we see no way around it. My hon. Friend quoted earlier from an excellent speech by the Secretary of State. During that speech, he quoted Tony Benn, the former Member for Chesterfield, who said:
	The House of Lords is the British Outer Mongolia for retired politicians.

Peter Hain: We are not debating the merits or otherwise of a second Chamber. To be fair, the House of Lords has behaved with great care and responsibility towards Welsh legislation such as the Transport (Wales) Bill, the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill and the various legislation that has gone through Parliament in recent years following bids from the Assembly. I would not expect it to treat Orders in Council in any way differently. Therefore, I do not think it right, in the middle of the debate about the Government of Wales Bill, to aim for a revolutionary change in the relationship between Lords and Commons. That would not be appropriate.
	I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) that the Secretary of State will lay the Order in Council triggering the referendum. The referendum cannot appear suddenly, all on its own. It needs a Secretary of State to lay the Order in Council, and that would present an opportunity for proper questions about the consultation process. That is why we have made the order a requirement: it is not a delaying tactic, but will mean that proper answers must be given to proper questions.
	In any case, the Secretary of State will have to consult the Electoral Commission about the referendum question contained in the draft Order in Council. The commission's report on that question's intelligibility will have to be laid, together with any preceding statement, with that draft order, according to the procedure established by section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that she wanted a procedure that would allow the Order in Council to be amended, by either House or by both. Her amendment is not explicit, but I presume that she would want the Assembly to have the same ability. That would be a recipe for endless ping-pong.
	If the Assembly did not have the ability to amend an Order in Council, but was required by the legislation to pass it, we would get it into great difficulties. I hope that the hon. Lady will concede, on reflection, that the 2000 Act contains a procedure that requires the Electoral Commission to be the driving force, along with the Government, on the referendum question. The commission will also, of course, have to consult with the Assembly on that question. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady, and that she will withdraw the amendment.

Adam Price: It is a shame that the Secretary of State believes that he can use the Bill to impose a constitutional lock by an unelected Chamber on the ambitions and aspirations of the people of Wales to deepen and enhance their democratic sovereignty. That is what the Bill does, and it is deeply objectionable to me and my party.
	Some Labour Members may share our belief that sovereignty lies with the people of Wales. It is insulting to give an unelected Chamber the power to reject a constitutionally based demand by the elected politicians who represent the Welsh people in the National Assembly. That such a demand can be flouted by an unelected Chamber that represents nothing, let alone the nation and people of Wales, is especially demeaning.
	I shall withdraw the amendment, but we may want to return to the matter. A consensus exists across the Chamber on this matter that we can build on with useful discussion. It is entirely unacceptable that the House of Lords should have a constitutional lock on the development of democracy in Wales.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The First Deputy Chairman: We now come to clause 102 stand part

Dai Havard: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) had an amendment under consideration by the Committee.

The First Deputy Chairman: That amendment is in this group, but this is not the appropriate time to deal with it. Was the hon. Gentleman seeking to divide the House on the amendment?

Hywel Francis: No, I was not.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is fine. We can proceed as I suggested.
	Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 103
	  
	Proposal for referendum by Assembly

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 57, line 7, leave out from 'which' to end of line 9 and insert
	'a majority of Assembly Members present and voting vote in favour'.
	I suspect that the debate may be rather short as it is likely that there will not be much meeting of minds between Plaid Cymru and the Government and other parts of the House. Clause 103 is concerned with the Assembly's power to pass a resolution that a recommendation should be made that a referendum be held on whether the provisions of Assembly Acts should come into force. The clause requires a two-thirds majority of Assembly Members to vote in favour. Our amendment would replace that with a simple majority.
	A simple majority has been deemed quite enough in this place to pass even the most contentious of matters. Hon. Members will recall just such a matter squeaking through last autumn by a single vote. I refer to the Terrorism Bill, which was of the utmost importance and to do with the freedom of citizens and a great many other matters. It was hugely contentious and split the Labour party, but it was carried by a single vote. I well recall Labour Membersat least, some of themcheering and waving their papers as that happened.
	If a one-vote majority is sufficient here on such contentious and important matters, why is it not good enough for the Assembly? The vote concerned will not be a vote to change the law; we will not be bringing in some huge innovation. It will be a question as to whether the people of Wales should be asked their opinion. In that circumstance, it would be quite proper to put the question to the people if a majority of the Assembly Members voted in favour. That is particularly so given the other checks on action that the Government have insisted on. When the Assembly holds a vote, there are the checks of the Secretary of State, of this place and of the place down the Corridor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said. All we are looking for is a vote on whether the people of Wales should be asked their opinion. I think it is a matter of common sense to do that by a majority vote.
	The research paper prepared by the Library notes that a two-thirds threshold is quite unusual. It also notes that the nearest precedent for this unusual move was the 40 per cent. threshold required for the referendums of 1979 on devolution for Scotland and Wales. That is an unfortunate precedent, to say the least. I have no desire to replay the fierce arguments of 1979 as that would not be appropriate here.

Adam Price: Go on.

Hywel Williams: I shall resist the temptation and note only that the 40 per cent. threshold then imposed was widely seen in Wales and in Scotland as being a wrecking move. There is a great danger that the higher threshold in the clausenot 40 per cent. but 66 per cent. before even an application could be made for a referendumwill be seen, too, as a wrecking move. It will be seen in a similar light.
	Of course, in 1979 the referendum in Wales was lost disastrously, and it took us many years to recover from that. However, if I may allude briefly to the situation in Scotland, it is significant that the vote was carried in Scotland, but the 40 per cent. threshold was not achieved. That gave rise to a great deal of conflict and argumentthe very controversy that the Secretary of State said only a few minutes ago that he was mindful to avoid in Wales. However, the Government are in danger of sowing further seeds of controversy, not about whether part 4 powers should come into effect but about whether the people of Wales should even be asked their opinion on the matter. The Secretary of State has an aversion to controversy around this issue, as he noted in speaking to amendment No. 31. In that respect, he should take the opportunity now to avoid further conflict on the two-thirds majority issue.
	The Government will contend, I suppose, that the two-thirds majority would indicate a consensus. We have heard the Secretary of State and the Minister say that a number of times and that we should not proceed without such a majority. It is for the Minister to answer the points that I and perhaps other hon. Members will make.

Mark Tami: Clearly, under the hon. Gentleman's proposal there could be a narrow majority, perhaps of only one. That would be a difficult referendum. What would be his view if a referendum on the future of the Assembly were lost on that basis?

Hywel Williams: I am happy to leave the question whether to hold a referendum to the good sense of the Assembly Members. That is what they are elected for by the people of Wales. They represent the people of Wales, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr said, they carry the sovereignty of the people of Wales. Plaid Cymru Members are happy to leave it to their good sense.
	The argument is to be made by the Minister. I suspect that he will not agree with me. I cannot see why a simple majority is not sufficient to call a referendum.

Peter Hain: May I say to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) that he and I agree, and our parties agree, that primary powers should be in this Bill? His party properly and honourably has campaigned for that for generations. I am proud to be the first Labour Secretary of State to be putting primary powers in a Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1979 referendum and the circumstances of it. I am haunted by that, although I did not take part in the campaign. From a distance I supported the yes campaign. I am also haunted by the narrowness of the vote in 1997. Unlike 1979, the Labour party was not bitterly divided on the question in 1997. In 1979, there was a minority saying yes and a majority probably no. The referendum was lost four to one. I do not think that we should go anywhere near a referendum that could produce those circumstances. That is why I built in carefully a two-thirds vote in the Assembly, which would require at least, in the current political configuration and that for the foreseeable future, Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats to be united, as we were in 1997. Even then, the referendum was only narrowly won.
	If we put in place a mechanism that could result in an opportunistic vote in the Assembly with the current political arithmetic, the Opposition, even for the sake of embarrassing the Governmentit is difficult to foresee, but one could imagine itcould force on the ruling Welsh Assembly Labour Government and on the Government here a referendum that could not be won by any objective assessment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) pointed out, that would do terrible damage to the cause of devolution and to the cause in which the hon. Member for Caernarfon believesthat of an Assembly with primary powers. This is not a roadblock; it is a sensible precaution.
	We would need a consensus in the Assembly, reflecting the views of directly elected Members only, and support in Parliament to follow. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, not because we disagree about the principle of primary powers in this Bill, or about having a strong Welsh Assembly or about the cause of devolution, but because if he were to get his way it could create circumstances that would take us nearer to 1979, which would be a disaster for the whole devolution cause.

Hywel Williams: I must say that I take offence at the Secretary of State's comments about the possibility of the Opposition parties, especially my party, taking an opportunistic chance in the Assembly to embarrass the Labour Government. This issue is far too important for that and I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that our party has acted very responsibly on this matter.

Peter Hain: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has taken this intervention, but I have to say that in recent months his party has consistently allied with the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly on opportunistic votes to defeat the Welsh Assembly Government. Why might not that happen again?

Hywel Williams: It is not opportunistic to vote against the Government on matters of principle and of great importance, such as tuition fees.

David Davies: I am not sure whether I should declare an interest at this point. However, I remind the Committee that different parties have voted in different configurations all the way through the Assembly. On many occasionseven quite recentlyI have joined the Labour party in voting against the Welsh nationalists. I do not think that anyone should read anything into that other than that all parties will try to do their best for the people whom they serve.

Hywel Williams: I do not wish to continue this discussion, but it does appear that the Labour party thinks that genuine and honest opposition to the Labour Government is in some way dishonourable, and I reject that entirely. As the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) said, we have voted with the Government on occasion, depending on the issue.
	I suspect that we shall not have a meeting of minds on the amendment and I do not wish to prolong the debate in view of the amount of business remaining. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ian Lucas: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 57, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert
	'(3)   The Secretary of State must
	(a)   within the period of 120 days beginning immediately after the day upon which it is received consult upon
	(i)   the voting system, and
	(ii)   the number of Assembly members
	of an Assembly after the Assembly Act provisions have come into force, and
	(b)   within the period of 180 days after the end of the consultation
	(i)   lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing on Order in Council under section 102(1) before each House of Parliament, or
	(ii)   give notice in writing to the First Minister of the Secretary of State's refusal to do so and the reasons for that refusal.'.
	The amendment relates to the period after the Assembly has voted in favour of moving forward on the proposal to this place for an Order for primary legislative powers. This is an unusual section of the Bill because it addresses a period that most parties agree is some time distant from today. It is not within the contemplationI hopeof the Government to bring forward proposals at this stage for a referendum to introduce the part 4 process. We are therefore talking about a period that is some years hencemy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned 2011-plus.
	In those circumstances, it is appropriate that if we are to consider the position politically at that time, there should be some provision in the process for a broader reflection on the Assembly to take place. The amendment proposes that after the Assembly asks for primary legislative powers there should be a consultation process, so that the people of Wales can be asked two questions relating to the Assembly.
	The first question relates to the voting system for the Assembly. We should not assume that the system that was put in place by the Government of Wales Act 1998 should be set in stone for ever. If we are to have an Assembly with primary legislative powers, we shall have a different creature to the body created by the 1998 Act. It would thus be entirely appropriate at that stage at least to consult the people of Wales on the voting system that should be used to elect the new Assemblyif I may call it that.
	People have extremely different views on the appropriate voting system for the Assembly at present. I am satisfied that the legislative powers for the Assembly that are proposed by the Bill are not so different from the existing powers that they require the system to be reconsidered at the moment. A referendum was held in 1998 and an additional member system was introduced. When a further referendum is held, there should be at least consultation so that the people of Wales can consider whether it is appropriate to continue with the additional member system. I have strong views on the matter. The Richard commission put forward several views, and the parties have different views on the system that should used. It would thus be right and proper to ask the question at the time of the referendum.

Cheryl Gillan: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he tell the Committee which voting system he prefers? He says that he has strong views on the matter, but has not explained the voting system that he would like to see at that stage.

Ian Lucas: I would like a first-past-the-post voting system with 40 constituencies in Wales represented by two Members eachone man, one woman.

Cheryl Gillan: That is very clear. Why has the hon. Gentleman restricted his amendment so that it allows consideration of the number of Assembly Members, but not commensurate consideration of the number of Members of Parliament at the same time?

Ian Lucas: The amendment proposes consultation. If primary powers are allocated to the Assembly following a referendum, the Labour Government are likely to reduce the number of Welsh Members of Parliament, just as they did with Scottish Members, because the Labour party is a generous party. When the Labour party considered voting systems, it even assisted the official Opposition by ensuring that they had additional Assembly Members in Wales although they could not win a first-past-the-post seat.

David Taylor: Is it not the case that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament was reduced not primarily because of the increased powers of the Scottish Parliament, but because of the significant inequity that had grown up over the years due to the number of people represented by each Scottish Member compared with the number represented by each English Member?

Ian Lucas: I am afraid that I am not as familiar with the intricacies of Scottish politics as my hon. Friend, so I will not respond to his point.

David Davies: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are some honourable exceptions to the rule of Conservatives not winning first-past-the-post seats? We have held at least one ever since the first Assembly elections were held.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we can resume debate on amendment No. 110.

Mark Tami: rose

Ian Lucas: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mark Tami: Like my hon. Friend, I support the introduction of the first-past-the-post system. Perhaps those who want a full single-transferable-vote system would give us an opportunity for the debate to take place. Few people are wedded to the current system. Many people on either side of the argument think that the system is badly flawed.

Ian Lucas: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is for that reason that I suggested a consultation. The issues are controversial. The importance of raising the subject at this stage is that unless the Bill is amended, the issues cannot be considered within the context of the referendum debate that will take place so far in the future.
	The second aspect of the consultation relates to the size of the Assembly in terms of the number of Members. Clearly, an Assembly that has primary legislative powers will have a scrutiny role that goes far beyond the existing scrutiny role of the National Assembly for Wales. It is not often that politicians call for more politicians. I am afraid that I will do so, because one of the most important aspects of any legislator's job is to scrutinise legislation. My personal sense is that it would be essential to increase the number of Assembly Members if primary legislative powers were to be granted to the National Assembly for Wales. Any sensible discussion in the lead-up to a referendum on primary legislative powers would inevitably touch on that issue. Again, with the Bill as it stands, it is difficult to envisage how that could be sensibly raised and how more Members could be introduced.
	I have suggested a consultation. I know that the issues are controversial, but when a major constitutional debate takes place in Wales when the referendum is calledif ever such a referendum is calledit is important that we have the discussions, consult the people and hear what they have to say.

Cheryl Gillan: I have read the hon. Gentleman's amendment carefully. Has he given any consideration to the length of time that the consultation should take? Does he envisage there being a specific period of time, so that it would not be an open-ended process?

Ian Lucas: I did consider the length of time, because the amendment stipulates a length of time. However, it is optimistic. I am not wedded to it. I was conscious that I did not want an extended period of consultation because I did not want to delay the process if the decision had been made by the Assembly. On the other hand, it would be necessary for a consultation to take place over a period of time, and for that reason I included the 120 days.

Paul Murphy: It is 18 years ago almost to the day when I was squeezed into such a debate, with two and a half minutes left at the end of business on Welsh questions. I hope that the rules of the House will permit me to continue my remarks when we return on Monday to discuss this important business.
	I sometimes look at legislation and apply what a very good friend of mine calls the Splott market test, which is: what would the people of Cardiff who go to the market in Splott on a Saturday morning think of the legislation that we are producing? I suspect that they would not think an awful lot about some of the constitutional issues that we have debated. I am not underestimating the significance of those issues, but we have to understand that, at the end of the day, the Welsh people want to consider how devolution affects their lives. Are their hospitals any better? Are their schools any better? Has the system of local government or planning been improved by the existence of the Assembly? The answer, probably, is yes, because the Assembly has given accessibility to Ministers and the accountability of Ministers to the people of Wales in a way that was never there when we had the old Wales Office.
	The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)
	It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [9 January].
	Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Excise

That the draft Duty Stamps (Amendment of paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2A to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9th January, be approved.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16th February, do adjourn till Monday 27th February 2006.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

HEALTH SERVICES (SUFFOLK)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Tim Yeo: I am delighted to have this chance to raise in Parliament the crisis in the health service in my constituency and in particular the threatened closure of Walnuttree hospital in Sudbury, a highly valued community hospital. The closure of Walnuttree, the loss of its in-patient beds and the ending of many out-patient services that are at present provided at the hospital, will be devastating for the town and the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal has been brought forward by the Suffolk West primary care trustwhich I will refer to simply as the trustat a time when the population of both Sudbury and Cornard is planned to grow significantly and when the trust itself has confirmed that Sudbury has the highest level of mortality in the county. The proposal runs directly counter to Government policy, and the way in which the trust has handled it has destroyed the faith of my constituents in the integrity of the consultation process and the decisions that are likely to follow it.
	Walnuttree serves 20,000 people in Sudbury and Cornard and thousands more in the nearby villages. It enjoys very high respect because of the quality of care provided by the dedicated and outstanding staff, many of whom have worked at the hospital for years. However, the hospital buildinga former Victorian workhousehas long been regarded as unsuitable, and it is greatly to the credit of the staff that the patients who have occupied its 68 beds and the people who use the out-patient services rarely if ever complain about the service that they receive. That is in contrast to the experience of some of my constituents in West Suffolk hospital at Bury St. Edmunds, where complaints are, regrettably, not infrequent. Unfortunately, patients who in the past have used Walnuttree will, if it is closed, be forced to go to West Suffolk hospital instead.
	Proposals for a new hospital in Sudbury to replace Walnuttree have been around for 20 years, and recently hopes were high that final approval for its replacement was imminent. It was a shock, therefore, in 2004 when local officials produced an apparently damning fire safety report and used it as a pretext to recommend the hospital's closure. A big local campaign was mounted, with all-party support, to fight that threat. In November 2004, my former Labour opponent, Kevin Craig, and I jointly delivered a 10,000-signature petition to Downing street.
	Great was the relief when that campaign persuaded local officials to see sense and a programme of fire safety work was announced. The then chief executive of Suffolk West primary care trust promised that Walnuttree would remain open until a replacement was built. In February 2005, the outline business plan for that replacement was approved by the strategic health authority. The then Secretary of State for Health wrote to Kevin Craig before the general election and said:
	Kevin . . . you have ensured that the voices of local people have been heard at the highest levels of Government.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer, no less, was quoted in Kevin Craig's election literature congratulating him on his role in that successful campaign. By April 2005, plans for the replacement hospital were well advanced and had been endorsed by a Department of Health gateway review report on the outline business case. Days before the general election, another meeting in Sudbury was assured that the new in-patient hospital would be built prior to the closure of the old site.
	Alas, with the election out of the way and a new chief executive in place at the trust, all those promises were suddenly cast aside. In June, the trust dropped its bombshell: Walnuttree was to be closed after all. No replacement in-patient beds were to be provided, just a glorified GP surgery. Even the in-patient services provided at Walnuttree were to be transferred to West Suffolk hospital 20 miles away.
	The reaction in the town was outrage. Days after the news broke, I chaired one of the biggest public meetings ever held in Sudbury, and the Walnuttree hospital action committee was formed. In July, with other Suffolk Members of Parliament and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I met the Secretary of State, who assured us that the consultation process would be taken seriously. However, the trust's consultation paper, Modernising Healthcare in West Suffolk was a seriously flawed document, which stressed the need for financial savings but suggested only one way of achieving themthrough savage cuts in local services and the closure of Walnuttree.
	Throughout summer and autumn, the community mounted the biggest protest campaign in my constituency in the past 23 years. I pay tribute to the action committee, including its chair, Colin Spence; Michael Mitchell, a porter at the hospital; Michael Mandelstam; the mayor of Sudbury, Lesley Ford-Platt; Richard Titford of Sudbury Churches Together; Sylvia Byham, and Peter Clifford. Those are just a few of the people who have done outstanding work.
	The committee adopted a highly professional approach, raising money to commission an expert study of the proposal and its likely effects, and offering to work with the trust to achieve an outcome that was acceptable to the local community and more consistent with stated Government policy. Regrettably, the trust rebuffed that approach. I much regret that the trust's new chief executive, Mike Stonard, has obstructed the action committee's attempts to find a solution to the problem, to the extent of resorting on occasion to untrue statements and evasions when asked straightforward questions, and casting wholly unjustified aspersions on the integrity of people who are campaigning to protect our health service.
	Truth has, on occasion, flown out of the window during the course of the argument. During Health questions on 22 November last year, I was told by the Secretary of State:
	Walnuttree . . . has already had 300,000 invested in it to bring it up to the standard required by fire safety regulations.[Official Report, 22 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1358.]
	When I challenged that assertion, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), wrote to me on 24 December saying:
	I have noted your comments about the advice given by officials being misleading in relation to the 300,000 spent at the Walnuttree Hospital to bring it up to fire safety regulations. I should point out that I have been assured that this advice is accurate.
	Last week, inquiries made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 revealed that expenditure on fire safety works during 2005 actually amounted to 100,000, not 300,000. The Under-Secretary may like to apologise on behalf of both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for their inadvertent misleading of the House. I hope that the Department will now examine the sources of the incorrect information that it was given.
	The trust's consultation document refers to increased provision of intermediate caresomething that everyone in Suffolk welcomesbut it utterly fails to make even a remotely convincing case for its claim that all those who in the past have received in-patient treatment at Walnuttree can be catered for in the community. Even the trust's own rules define a set of patients as ineligible for care in the community, which includes those without a carer at home, those whose home is unsuitable, those whose needs are too great, and those who do not have the potential for rehabilitation within six weeks. Nor has the trust explained how the cost of all that extra treatment in the community will be met.
	Those proposals will also place a heavy burden on both Suffolk county council social services and on West Suffolk hospital. Unfortunately, in the current yearbefore the trust's proposals come into operationthe social services department already faces an overspend of 2.7 million. Far from being unable to cope with any extra burden, the department is looking for ways to make savings. West Suffolk hospital also faces a cash crisis and is planning to close beds.
	The driver of the trust's proposals is not, as Mike Stonard claims, its desire to introduce an improved model of care. It is all about saving money. So desperate is the crisis that management is breaking all its previous promises and introducing measures that will clearly damage patients. Since it is only about money, why did the trust not consider whether it would be cheaper to keep open the in-patient beds at Walnuttree, as community beds are generally understood to be cost effective?
	The truth is that if the trust wanted to improve services in Sudbury, it would revert to the previous evidence-based successful model of care, which included some in-patient beds at Walnuttree, alongside improved services in the community. Ramming through bed closures by alleging that none of the patients who has used them in the past will in future ever need to be treated anywhere other than at home is absurd. Some patients will be inappropriately left at home to suffer or even die without proper community support. Others, as the trust admits, will have to be accommodated within West Suffolk hospital, aggravating the problem of bed blocking and causing longer waiting lists, in direct contradiction of Government policy.
	As the Audit Commission said in its report, The Way to Go HomeRehabilitation and Remedial Services for Older People,
	there is a danger that in the general confusion around the term 'intermediate care', older people will not receive the care they need.
	Bear it in mind that less than a year ago the outline business case proposed, after months of consultation and with widespread local support, a model of care that included 32 new in-patient beds in the new hospital that would replace Walnuttree. What changed between February and June last year to render this model suddenly irrelevant? Not the evidence about patient need. Not the needs of the community. Not the number of people requiring care at Walnuttree. All that changed was the decision of the trust to put the demands of the accountants ahead of the interests of patients.
	Ironically, the letter in which the Minister of State made her inaccurate claim about what had been spent on fire safety included a statement of policy on community hospitals. She stated:
	Our commitment to community hospitals is to support a new generation of community hospitals that can meet the needs of local people.
	I invite the Minister to tell the House this evening that he will instruct the trust to honour that commitment. Or was it, like so many statements from Ministers now, just words, which the Minister never intended should have any real meaning?
	Community hospitals are, after all, not just cheaper and more cost effective for in-patients than acute hospitals; they are closer to home, patient friendly and offer more continuity of care provision. What is more, the Minister of State has boasted of 100 million being available to develop them. What about a fraction of that for Sudbury?
	It is not only in-patients who will suffer. Last year the outline business case included consultant clinics at the replacement hospital. These, too, have disappeared from the trust's plans for Sudbury and will instead be moved to West Suffolk hospital in order to save 40,000 a year. At least in this regard the trust admits that decentralised services can sometimes be more expensive, a factor that it conveniently overlooks when costing the extra intermediate care which it claims will be provided in future.
	Centralising the clinics in West Suffolk hospital will greatly burden the patients who use them. The car journey to West Suffolk hospital from Sudbury takes half an hour at best, costs a significant amount and adds to pollution, including CO 2 emissions. Many elderly patients have no access to a car and will have to make the bus journey of more than an hour, which culminates in a five-minute uphill walk from the bus stop to the hospitalsomething that no one at the hospital was even aware of until I pointed it out.
	I tried the bus journey myself last August and invited the directors of the trust to join me. None did, possibly fearing that first-hand knowledge of what they were planning to inflict on vulnerable patients, who until now have enjoyed a local service, might force them to admit their mistake. Incidentally, patients report that the hospital's own transport service is even worse and can take up to six hours door to door because of the need to collect patients from all over a dispersed rural area.
	Ministers have stressed the Government's commitment to patient choice, but patient choice is not what the trust will provide. Ministers have spoken about care closer to home, but the trust is taking care for many patients further away from home. Not surprisingly, nobody affected by these proposals supports them. The three main GP practices in Sudbury, including one that could benefit if the proposals go ahead, have all rejected them. Rehabilitation clinicians and therapists within the Suffolk West primary care trust have protested internally. The BMA has condemned the plans. Sudbury town council has objected to them. Babergh district council said that the proposals
	are not cost effective and will not deliver increased access to services
	and that they
	will have an adverse impact on Babergh's disabled adaptations budget.
	Suffolk county council passed a motion urging
	the Secretary of State for Health to instruct primary care trusts not to close Community Hospitals until some other means of intermediate care is up and running.
	The local patient and public involvement forum stated that
	the actual proposals appear to be ill-thought out, lack real factual cost justification and in our view are likely to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to those in need.
	Five thousand letters have been sent to the Secretary of State, and 3,500 submissions have been made to the trust. There is not a shred of justification for the proposals. They will harm the population that they are supposed to serve, and they contradict Government policy. Understandably, residents now have little faith in the integrity of the consultation process.
	In East Suffolk, where 90 per cent. of the responses to the consultation, Changing for the better: next steps, criticised the proposals, the agency interpreting the data on behalf of the various trusts commented:
	The consultation questionnaire was assessed to have poorly drafted questions that tended to lead respondents towards an apparently obvious (and negative) answer . . . What little evidence there is suggests the response sample was not representative . . . the health community would be unwise to place excessive weight upon the quantitative views expressed during this consultation.
	Would that have been the reaction if the public had backed the proposals? I fear that when the responses to the Suffolk West primary care trust consultation are analysed, a similar charade will occur. If the questions do not produce the answers that the trust wants, someone will say that they were the wrong questions, and the people who replied to them will not be considered representative. To make matters worse, the Suffolk West primary care trust will soon be abolished, before its bosses have to answer for the damage and suffering that their proposals will be inflicting.
	One final point must be emphasised. Although the trust must bear a big share of the responsibility for what has gone wrong, it is also true that Suffolk West has been disgracefully treated in cash terms by the Department of Health. Serious underfunding from the centre has compounded the problems with which the trust has had to grapple. The tragedy is that, against that background, the solution that the trust proposes will not solve the problem.

Richard Spring: May I express my admiration for the restraint with which my hon. Friend is delivering his speech? Does he agree that spending is at the heart of this matter? In Suffolk West, the per capita spend is 223 less than in the rest of the country. The fact that the changes in the funding formulae that have taken place under this Government are skewed against an area such as Suffolk West was confirmed this afternoon by the strategic health authority.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is quite right about that. We have a severe underfunding problem in Suffolk West.
	It is not the Walnuttree hospital that has caused this crisis. It is a combination of unfair treatment by the Department and short-sighted incompetence by the trust. I urge the Minister to say three things in his reply. First, he should acknowledge that intermediate care is not suitable for every single patient. Secondly, he should instruct the trust to abort its consultation process at once. Thirdly, he should tell the trust to work with the Walnuttree hospital action committee to develop alternative proposals, based on a proven model of care, that will reflect the priorities of the Government and the   needs of the patients. If the Minister does that tonight, I will launch a fund to erect a statue to him in the town.

Liam Byrne: I have not been in politics long, and I certainly have not had an offer like that before. Let me see what I can do this evening. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on securing this Adjournment debate. He takes a keen interest in health matters in Suffolk, and he has recently raised the matter of health services in his constituency in parliamentary questions and correspondence, to which ministerial colleagues have recently replied. Indeed, the Secretary of State and other ministerial colleagues have also been fortunate enough to meet several of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and fellow local MPs in Suffolk and the wider strategic health authority area to discuss local health services. I should also like to put on record my thanks and praise for the work done by Kevin Craig and local councillors in ensuring that this matter has been so thoroughly aired.
	Before I turn to the vital local matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I hope that the House will permit me to sketch a little of the background to this debate. The national health service is now in receipt of record resources. Funding of the NHS has increased from 35 billion to nearly 70 billion, and by 200708, that will rise again to 92 billion. That is a huge increase. If the NHS were an economy, it would be the 33rd largest in the world, a little larger than that of Portugal.
	That money has gone where it matters. It has gone towards boosting the numbers of consultants, GPs and nurses, which have risen by 47 per cent., by nearly 4,500 and by 67 per cent. respectively since 1997. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman emphasised the contribution made by NHS staff in his constituency.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on securing such an important debate. I hear what the Minister is saying, but if a record amount is being invested, why are hospitals such as Walnuttree closing?

Liam Byrne: I shall deal with the question of investment in South Suffolk shortly.
	Those new staff up and down the country have done an enormous amount of work in shortening waiting lists. The number of people receiving treatment in hospital has increased by three quarters of a million to over 5.5 million, up by 16 per cent. since 1997. The total number of people waiting is down by more than 25 per cent., and the number of people waiting for more than three months by more than 50 per cent. The result, quite simply, is the saving of lives. Cancer mortality rates in England are down by 12 per cent., and the mortality rate for circulatory disease in England has fallen by 27 per cent.
	Suffolk has benefited greatly from that advance. The latest figures show that death rates from coronary heart disease in the Suffolk area have fallen by nearly 23 per cent. since 1997. That is not an accident; it has happened because there are 400 more consultants, 4,900 more nurses and 800 more doctors in the strategic health authority area. Those staff have done an enormous amount to cut waiting times, and the results are showing in the most important indicators, the mortality statistics.
	Along with the extra money have come innovations such as the early intervention team that helps West Suffolk hospital to manage new demand; new community matrons; 26 million of investment in Ipswich to create a new critical care suite and planned treatment centre, scheduled to open in 2007; and the launch of a digital hearing aid service, Choose and Book, up and running in east Suffolk ahead of schedule. I could go on and on, but the debate is not about the past. It is about the future, and at the heart of the critique of the hon. Member for South Suffolk were two questions with which I wish to deal, about money and about services.
	An extra 110 million or so has gone into the NHS in Suffolk since 2003. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has received an extra 49 million between 200304 and 200506. I am glad that he raised the issue of fair funding. Fair funding would not have been promoted by the patient's passport, on which he campaigned in his constituency during the election. I am glad that that policy has gone into the bin. The introduction of fair funding is important in Suffolk, because it will raise health funding to the necessary level. Between 200607 and 200708, the total amount of extra money for Suffolk is set to rise by 86 million. There are deficits in some Suffolk trusts, but it is important to note that the level of increased funding for primary care trusts in Suffolk is nearly 2.5 times that of current deficits.
	The pace of change with which funds have been increased is important. The hon. Gentleman said he did not feel that his area had been treated well in the past. In the future, the rate of funding will rise by nearly 21.5 per cent. That is more than the national average, which is just 19.5 per cent.
	At a time when the amount of money is rising, it is important for the local NHS to spend time on getting services right. There are no more important services than those that support older people and those with long-term conditions, not just because they have given their country and their community a lifetime's service but because they are the nation's biggest users of the NHS. Two thirds of NHS acute beds at any one time are occupied by someone over the age of 65, and we believe that about 80 per cent. of NHS costs are spent on the 15 million people with long-term conditions. Services for older people and those with long-term conditions need to be strengthened, in Suffolk as elsewhere. The principles that underpin the current consultation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency must be in line with the policy of transforming emergency care to support the care of both older people and people with long-term conditions closer to home, which is where they want it to be. That means supporting people in their own homes with integrated health and social care teams, often co-ordinated by community matrons, in a model of care that has been successfully introduced elsewhere in   the NHS and already exists in many parts of Suffolk.   Intermediate care is needed that progresses rehabilitation much faster, enabling people to maintain their independence, so they do not become completely reliant on episodic hospital care.

Richard Spring: rose

Liam Byrne: I have two or three more important points to make in the last five minutes. If I get a pause, I will give way.
	The key point about modernisation of services in Suffolk is that 20th century models of services, which often trapped patients in hospitals, simply do not meet the needs of patients, families and, importantly, carers, and nor do they exploit advances in assistive technology. The public have told PCTs that they need to co-ordinate services better with social care so that people do not spend unnecessary time in hospital.
	Rightly, there will always be popular affection for well-established local institutions such as the Walnuttree. That is surely no crimeNHS professionals change people's lives. I will always remember the surgeon who struggled to save my mother's life and the midwives who delivered my children. Surely the 2,500 responses in east Suffolk, the 3,500 responses in West Suffolk and the 29,000 people who signed nine separate petitions across the county to show their support for the Walnuttree reflect that instinct. Such views must be balanced against the need for the NHS to modernise and provide the most appropriate care for patients.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about statements made to the House about spending on the Walnuttree. The chief executive of the primary care trust will now write back to him explaining exactly how the 300,000, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave as information to the House, was spent.
	Over the years to come, important changes will be needed to the way in which money is spent. Surely it is good that the local community in Suffolk has to consider how to spend another 86.5 million over the next two years in delivering 21st century care. The White Paper on health and social care, which will shortly be presented to the House, will have a great deal to say about how care needs to be shifted much closer to the community, how we need to shift the balance of spending from acute hospitals into preventive services, and importantly, how health and social care must work more closely together.

Tim Yeo: In the four or five minutes that the Minister has left, can he explain why what was such a good ideabacked by the Department of Health, the strategic health authority and the local trustthe day before the election, turned out to be such a bad idea a month later?

Liam Byrne: Unfortunately, I was not party to the plans developed before the election, but the important point raised by the hon. Gentleman is how the proposals currently on the table, which I understand will be decided on and published after the board meeting at the end of February, match up to Government policy. When the primary care trust reaches its decision and publishes it to the local community, it is important that it explains how the proposals that it has considered line up against the White Paper to be published shortly. As I said, that White Paper will contain a number of important principles. It will talk about how we shift money into preventive services, how we give people far more control of their own care, and how we ensure that health and social care work much more closely together.

Richard Spring: The Minister is replying with great courtesy but, with respect, he is living in complete fantasy. The idea that there are integrated care teams and that people can exist to be part of those teams is nonsense because there is already a shortage of people in the county of Suffolk who could undertake that job. Although he is talking about increases, already, pre-emptively, at the main hospital in West Suffolk, 260 people have had their jobs removed in the past few months, and 55 beds have been removed. The crisis is deepening. With respect, his words are not linked to the reality on the ground. I am sorry to have the tell him that.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention but services will often need to be changed as there are advances in the way people in social care and primary care work together. Of course, we would expect services to be reconfigured. We would also expect, for example, more services that are currently located in acute trusts to move closer to the community.
	If we look at the way in which outpatient services are managed in every other modern health care system on the continent and the amount that is concentrated in primary care systems, there is a great contrast with our own system. We need to learn important lessons from that. We need to look at how, in certain disciplines such as ear, nose and throat, dermatology and a range of others, outpatient services can be moved into services that are closer to home. That will sometimes require reconfiguration of services that are centred on acute trusts. That agenda is based on strengthening services and that is why I want to underline
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.